On politicians and the environment

15 Mar 2006

Got questions about the environment? Ask Umbra.

Dear Umbra,

I got into a long debate with a conservative friend recently about how President Bush has shown that he does not have environmental interests at heart. But I did not have any facts on hand about detrimental policies or budget cuts. On the other hand, my friend was able to go to the EPA website and show me a list of initiatives and results. There must be some reason environmentalists feel that Bush is not Mother Nature's friend, but finding facts to back that up, not just liberal hype, is difficult. Is there cause to think Bush is good for the environment, but the media just doesn't portray it?

Alani Taylor
Athens, Ga.

Ask Umbra continues below

ADVERTISING POLICY

Dearest Alani,

Um, next question?

To be fair, no administration has been fabulous. Bush may believe his actions are good for the environment in the long run (debated point). But as others point out, if ecological interests were a priority, the administration would be strengthening and expanding existing environmental policies that have proven track records. It is not. So while it's possible that we will look back in 50 years and be surprised to see improvements -- the air has gotten cleaner, water safer, species diverser (new coinage!), and global warming stopped -- anyone who actually cares about these things would rather be sure now than surprised later.

What's the deal?

Photo: iStockphoto.

Don't fall for your friend's tricks. Firstly, the EPA is a federal government agency. It's filled with many hardworking environmentalists (our hearts go out to them), but at the end of the day, of course, EPA propaganda boosts the administration's "achievements." Secondly, resources that critique the gummint are not simply "liberal hype," a term created and promulgated by the right in an effective war of words. A few places to bone up on politics: Grist's own Muckraker, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Center for Cooperative Research, where an open-content file on Bush's record is managed by the League of Conservation Voters.

The LCV each year publishes a national voting scorecard, where you can see last year's major congressional actions affecting the environment and find your Georgia delegation's score (Sen. Saxby Chambliss got a big fat goose egg). NRDC, LCV, and Grist are nongovernmental organizations that focus on environmental concerns -- concerns that are neither liberal nor conservative, but shared across the political spectrum.

The best way to keep tabs on what politicians are doing on the environment is to read the news regularly. I know it can be hard to sift through the missing-dog stories to find relevant and educational environmental news -- but hey, that's what Daily Grist is for. If you spend an hour on the sites I've suggested, and keep somewhat abreast of news as it comes along, you'll develop your own opinion about Bush and his policies that will have little to do with my hot air or that of your friend. Only you know if you are a hyped-up liberal. (I am, but I'm the one part of Grist allowed to escape objectivity. Whoopee!)

Relievedly,
Umbra

Yours is to wonder why, hers is to answer (or try). Please send Umbra any nagging question pertaining to the environment -- but first check out her FAQs!

The claims made in this column may not reflect the views of this magazine. Neither the magazine nor the author guarantees that any advice contained in this column is wise or safe. Please use this column at your own risk.

Umbra Fisk is Grist Research Associate II, Hardcover and Periodicals Unit, floors 2B-4B.

Comments: (7 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Another place to look

A decidedly non-objective, but comprehensive website:
BushGreenwatch.org

Frequently asked technical questions about Grist's newsletters and website.

by Corey McKrill at 1:04 PM on 15 Mar 2006

Some Anti-Environmental Acts

How about the "Healthy Forests Initiative" or weakening of water and air quality standards? This administration has done so many environmentally destructive things in order to support the profits of destructive industries that it's hard to keep track. Jim Hightower, at the Green Festival in 2004, pointed out that just the environmental regulations this administration has changed for the worse would be the size of a large phone book.

Jeff Hoffman

by jdhlax at 1:28 PM on 15 Mar 2006

Bush

Umbra, dear, you are altogether too polite. It is a matter of fact, not opinion, that this administration is the worst, environmentally speaking, in the history of the republic. Bobby Kennedy wrote a whole book on the subject. So did Carl Pope and Paul Rauber. And a few others. Yes, those people are from NRDC and the Sierra Club, but for corroboration try Republicans for Environmental Protection http://www.repamerica.org/, who don't think much better of the administration than I do. This isn't close. Looking to the EPA for a neutral assessment is akin to asking Ang Lee which is the best movie of the year.

Tom Turner

by Tom Turner at 1:29 PM on 15 Mar 2006

How about the

gag rule, attempts to drill in the Arctic refuge, and the roadless rule?

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

by biodiversivist at 3:41 PM on 15 Mar 2006

The Best Argument

Here's one that's won me quite a few water cooler debates: If Bush was an environmentalist, he would make the federal regulations a baseline and allow states to have more stringent regulations.

by Icelander at 5:00 AM on 16 Mar 2006

Government

I agree that the EPA webpage is not a good source of information. EPA is filled with hardworking, hard-core environmentalists at the staff level. However, EPA is still a Government Agency that gets funding from Congress and must have every move it makes approved by the White House and OMB. Despite the best efforts of the staff, information gets distorted and the "initiatives" are actually euphemisms for just the opposite. Clear Skies and Healthy Forests actually give more power to industry to pollute and destroy. As a Government worker, I agree with Umbra that the environment has not been a top priority of even the recent democrat administrations. The main difference that I see is that the previous democrat adminstrations did not do very much to further the environmental causes but did not do much harm to the existing environmental regulations either. Not anymore....

by TreeHuggerBunnyLover at 6:52 AM on 16 Mar 2006

Not defending Bush but....

Despite the dire warnings from "preservationists", our National Forests didn't turn into a 190,000,000 acre clearcut from "Healthy Forests". We also haven't seen rampant old growth liquidation, either. "Chicken Little" was wrong again.

However, Bush hasn't relieved the gridlock, has tried to cut the public out of their opinions and tried a different path towards pillaging Roadless Areas. His attempts to outsource Forest Service jobs has had limited success and he's meeting stiff resistance from many sides on that issue. He also continues to pursue old growth in the Pacific Northwest against formidible and convincing resistance. He's fighting to modify or eliminate things like NEPA and the Endangered Species Act (which ARE still necessary to keep for proper ecosystem management, IMHO).

Bush, Kerry and Gore were all at the extreme ends of the spectrum and I have to say that we're lucky to still be moving towards middle-of-the-road solutions to restoration of our National Forests.

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

by Backcut at 7:32 AM on 16 Mar 2006

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?

Politicked Off

On politicians and the environment