Environmental Changes Under Bush - Bah Humbug!
Click
Here to Add Comment Subject:
Environmental Changes Under Bush - Bah Humbug!
Date:
Tue, 24 Dec 2002 13:02:32 -0500
From:
Stephen Tvedten <steve@getipm.com>
Organization: Get Set Inc. (www.getipm.com)
To: Paul Helliker <phelliker@cdpr.ca.gov>
Director, State of California, Department of Pesticide
Regulation
cc: Christine Whitman whitman.christine@epa.gov
http://www.adn.com/24hour/healthscience/story/681599p-5073559c.html
ANALYSIS: Administration tweaks all aspects of environmental policy
Copyright © 2002 Nando Media Copyright © 2002 Scripps Howard News Service
Environmental changes under Bush - Environmental Protection Agency - Natural Resources Defense Council By JOAN LOWY, Scripps Howard News Service (December 19, 7:02 a.m. AST) -
Halfway through his term, President Bush has done more to change the way federal environmental laws are defined and implemented than any other president in the last three decades, leaving his mark on virtually every aspect of national environmental policy.
In decisions ranging from the disposal of mining waste in waterways to whether aging power plants have to upgrade pollution-control equipment to oil drilling on public lands, Bush has sought to minimize federal oversight, favored a style of environmental enforcement that is more carrot than stick and tried to lessen the cost of environmental regulation on business and industry.
White House officials say the president has brought a commonsense approach to environmental policies that were hurting the economy by balancing economic needs against environmental gain. Critics say Bush has steadily rolled back fundamental environmental protections, siding with business and industry at the expense of the public and the environment.
"I think it's fair to say that we have never before faced such a fundamental challenge to every aspect of environmental protection," said Greg Wetstone of the Natural Resources Defense Council. "These are not changes at the margins. It's sweeping, it's across-the-board, and it's coordinated through the White House."
Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman on environmental issues, said critics are trying to scare the public in an effort to raise contributions.
"The president believes there needs to be a new way of thinking with regard to the nation's environmental laws and regulations," McClellan said. "The zero-sum alternative approach of some of these special-interest groups will lead to either no progress or dire consequences for our economy."
Without a strong economy, the nation can't afford to pay for the research and new technologies needed to address many environmental problems, McClellan said.
As an example, McClellan cited the criticism Bush has received from Democrats, environmentalists and others for one of his first major environmental decisions - to withdraw the United States from the Kyoto Protocol, the climate-change treaty that sets country-by-country targets for reducing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse-gas emissions.
Shifting the economy away from greenhouse-gas-producing fossil fuels like oil and coal in order to comply with the treaty would cost the nation an estimated 4.9 million jobs and billions of dollars, McClellan said.
Critics, however, cite studies that show near-term costs to the economy would be far less than those projected by the administration, and that potential long-term costs of delaying a shift to alternative fuels could be catastrophic.
The decision to pull out of the treaty was one of Bush's highest-profile environmental decisions. But political appointees, many of whom were drawn from industries they now oversee, have quietly made dozens of other important decisions. The vast majority of changes to environmental policies and regulations under Bush have been made administratively, rather than through laws passed by Congress.
"In the first Reagan term, you had somewhat clownish figures like (Interior Secretary) James Watt who became lightning rods for public criticism. Many initiatives were stymied by the clumsy manner in which they tried to roll back regulation," said Jonathan Turley, who teaches environmental law at George Washington University Law School.
"This group is much more sophisticated," Turley said. "They have kept much of the changes largely out of the public eye. They have put their focus on those regulatory and policy changes that can be done without congressional involvement or media exposure."
One of Bush's first decisions upon taking office in January 2001 was to put on hold more than a dozen regulations proposed or adopted in the final months of the Clinton administration. Many were ultimately dropped or scaled back. Some remain in limbo.
Typical are regulations proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency under former President Clinton to control overflows of raw sewage from inadequate and poorly maintained sewer systems. The regulations would have imposed tougher operation and maintenance requirements on sewage system operators. They had supported the regulations in a compromise reached with the EPA, but withdrew support after Bush took office, saying the proposals would cost too much. Two years later, the regulations remain in limbo.
There are about 40,000 sewer-system overflows and 400,000 basement backups of untreated sewage each year, according to the EPA. Between 1.8 million and 3.5 million people annually get sick from swimming in waterways contaminated with untreated sewage from overflowing sewers.
Even actions touted by the White House as evidence of the president's commitment to environmental progress on closer examination often appear illusory or turn out to be merely confirmation of actions already taken by the Clinton administration, critics said.
One of the most controversial environmental decisions of Bush's tenure was to delay the implementation of a tougher standard adopted under Clinton for arsenic in drinking water of 10 parts per billion, instead of the previous standard of 50 ppb. Industrial polluters and municipal water suppliers had complained about the expense of meeting the new standard.
Bush administration officials said they wanted time to assess the scientific basis for the new standard. But a report by the National Academy of Sciences concluded that even the standard proposed by Clinton carried an increased cancer risk, and that an even lower standard might be needed to protect public health.
After release of the report, the EPA moved quickly to embrace the 10 ppb standard. The White House now cites it as one of Bush's environmental victories.
"The best news out of this administration is if they leave an existing policy in place and don't try to retreat from it," said Bruce Hamilton, conservation director of the Sierra Club.
In another case, Bush announced his support in April 2001 for the Stockholm Convention, a treaty that mandates the worldwide phaseout of a dozen highly toxic and persistent chemicals, including dioxins, PCBs and pesticides such as DDT. The decision won widespread praise from environmentalists.
Since then, however, the administration has hindered implementing legislation, effectively undermining the treaty, environmentalists said.
When Bush first took office, environmentalists hoped that EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman would be a strong voice within the administration for environmental protection. But she lost several high-profile battles early on and has been a largely passive figure since.
As a result, environmentalists said, one of the most important changes under Bush has been a weakening of environmental enforcement. Excluding the Superfund toxic waste program, civil penalties levied by EPA have been averaging $3.8 million a month under Bush, compared with $10.6 million a month during the last 28 months of the Clinton administration. The average fine has dropped from $1.3 million to $600,000.
In his first budget submission to Congress, Bush proposed cutting 225 enforcement jobs at EPA. Congress refused to go along, but there has been an attrition of more than 100 enforcement jobs, and more reductions are proposed.
One of the administration's most controversial decisions has been to relax requirements that older power plants install state-of-the-art pollution-control equipment whenever major modifications are made.
Environmentalists said the new regulations will lead to greater air pollution and damage public health. But industry officials - who had complained that the expense was keeping them from modernizing older plants - applauded the move.
"I don't see that as being a rollback," said Bill Kovacs, vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "I see that as putting rationality into a system that was sometimes irrational."
If you would like to be included in our mailing list for continuing information on pesticides, please email us at list@safe2use.com.