Bush and Kerry on the Issues: Environment

[Crimen y Castigo]

Highlights From today's NYT:
New Priorities in Environment (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/14/politics/campaign/14enviro.html?pagewanted=1&hp)

...
From the start, Bush officials challenged the status quo and revised the traditional public-policy calculus on environmental decisions. They put an instant hold on many Clinton administration regulations, and the debates over those issues and others are intensely polarized.

The administration has sought to increase the harvesting of energy and other resources on public lands, to seek cooperative ways to reduce pollution, to free the military from environmental restrictions and to streamline - opponents say gut - regulatory and enforcement processes.

...
The administration contends that free markets often provide the best solution to pollution. That belief underlies regulatory proposals to allow power plants that exceed their goals in reducing pollutants to sell cleanup credits to plants that fall short.

The failed "Clear Skies" act, incorporating this approach, was in many ways reborn in a pending regulation that Bush officials say would offer significant pollution reductions and that critics dismiss as a retreat from the mandates of the Clean Air Act.

Mr. Leavitt called the reasoning simple. "Rather than spend decades and millions litigating" to ensure power plants' compliance one at a time, "let's require everyone to do it essentially at the same time," he said. "And create incentives for them to do more as opposed to incentives to try to avoid."


...
Mr. Bush backed off a campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxide and abandoned the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement to reduce heat-trapping gases linked to global warming. Then the administration pushed, unsuccessfully, for a law allowing oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It scrapped the phaseout of snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park and briefly dropped a Clinton proposal to cut the permissible level of arsenic in drinking water by 80 percent.

The cumulative effect was striking. The decisions sought to reverse environmental action for which there was broad support. Polls by The New York Times in mid-2001 and late 2002 consistently showed public opposition to drilling in the Arctic refuge. A CBS poll in the same period showed that, by ratios of better than two to one, those polled said that environmental protection was more important than energy production.

The outcry ensured that some Bush administration initiatives favorable to the cause of environmental groups received little notice. They include the E.P.A.'s decision to force General Electric to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to remove PCB's in the Hudson River, a cleanup that has been delayed; legislation speeding the cleanup of urban industrial sites known as brownfields; increases in financing for private land set aside for conservation of animals and their habitats; and the first limits for diesel emissions in trucks and off-road vehicles.

...
Environmentalists, for example, accuse the administration of trying to pressure or ignore its scientists, from those of the Pocosin biologists in North Carolina to Environmental Protection Agency scientists working on global warming. In several instances at the agency and at the Fish and Wildlife Service, political appointees aggressively policed agency scientific work that could form the basis of new regulations.

Administration officials, some of whom were lobbyists for the industries they now regulate, say the crucial factors in their thinking are scientific rigor and economic logic. Such priorities were cited in the proposal to expand drilling in Alaska.

The effort to offer the set-aside section of the Alaska petroleum reserve for leasing parallels moves across the West. Bureau of Land Management offices and their land-use plans have been re-engineered to streamline leasing and drilling decisions. From the beginning of the fiscal year, the number of drilling permits has increased to 5,222, the bureau reported. If that pace continues, the annual total will be more than 50 percent higher than the average in the previous three years.

Ms. Norton says that "less than one percent of the surface acres of the Bureau of Land Management have any disturbance for oil and gas production." With new safeguards for wildlife and technologies allowing several wells to branch underground from one well pad, both energy and environmental needs can be satisfied, she said.

>>>

As biased as I am, I tried to pull objectively from the article. It's a long piece.

I'll find some Kerry positions and post them later, unless someone can do it first.

[argentine soccer fan]

I think I heard Senator Kerry say in a speech that he supports tougher fuel-efficiency standards for cars.

As far as drilling for oil in Alaska, I think Senator Kerry came out against it, while President Bush is for it. I suppose we can look in their official websites to find out more.

[DJPoopypants]

I am surprised that Bush is not under more fire about this.

Maybe its just the NE, but most people here are pretty sensitive regarding the environment. Not "save the whatever owl" sensitive, but "I'd like to see cleaner skies, less asthma, better drinking water, no sewage in my town, gee, with all these people and congestion, it sure ain't like pretty like it used to be" sensitive.

But I guess the NE is locked up for Kerry, so he perhaps the "he wants dirty power plants to keep spewing chemicals into the enviroment" charge won't carry as much weight in the midwest where such power plants are employing people.

[Frank Cunha]

Bush don't know the word environment :)

[BlueMeanie]

I think I heard Senator Kerry say in a speech that he supports tougher fuel-efficiency standards for cars.

As far as drilling for oil in Alaska, I think Senator Kerry came out against it, while President Bush is for it. I suppose we can look in their official websites to find out more.
Kerry says U.S. needs alternative car fuels (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/08/07/MNG5384B381.DTL)

FWiW, here's a kook environmentalist site ( EnviroTruth.org (http://www.envirotruth.org/) ) created in 2002 by conservative think tank National Center for Public Policy Research (http://www.nationalcenter.org/). On it, you'll find pretty much every anti-environmentalist talking point.

*******

Bush's policy on the environment has obviously been a sham. He's replaced administrators in several agencies with corporate cronies who are there to ensure that the agencies don't interfere with big business over such petty concerns as pollution. In several cases, these replacements have been former risk assessment advisors for major companies, whose job it was to underplay the potential for pollution, poisoning, etc. of their clients. Now they're policy makers. Nice.

[Frank Cunha]

Hybrid car could be a solution

[Chris M.]

I think I heard Senator Kerry say in a speech that he supports tougher fuel-efficiency standards for cars.

As far as drilling for oil in Alaska, I think Senator Kerry came out against it, while President Bush is for it. I suppose we can look in their official websites to find out more.

I believe this is correct. Bush wants to freeze at the current standard of 22 mpg and Kerry favors increasing minimum fuel standards to 36 mpg by 2015.

Personally, I think we should push it even farther considering where hybrid technology is now.

I always got a chuckle out of Bush's "Healthy Forest Initiative" which calls for increased logging to prevent forest fires. :D

[Frank Cunha]

my friends the War in Iraq was for oil

[BlueMeanie]

Hybrid car could be a solution
Could be a solution for cutting down on fossil fuel usage, but many folks can't afford the increased electric bills.

We should look into vegetable oil fuels, like Germany has. Our buddies England, OTOH, have banned usage of vegetable-fuel driven vehicles, and have jailed perpetrators.

[Casper]

Could be a solution for cutting down on fossil fuel usage, but many folks can't afford the increased electric bills.

We should look into vegetable oil fuels, like Germany has. Our buddies England, OTOH, have banned usage of vegetable-fuel driven vehicles, and have jailed perpetrators.
Blue, the mass-produced hybrid cars on the road today do not plug in. They use a hybrid motor that uses gasoline, just less of it. Very easy. Distinct from the electric car.

The electric (plug-in) car may not be a net reducer of pollution, if the electricity powering it comes from a coal plant. Disappointing but true.

[BlueMeanie]

Blue, the mass-produced hybrid cars on the road today do not plug in. They use a hybrid motor that uses gasoline, just less of it. Very easy. Distinct from the electric car.

The electric (plug-in) car may not be a net reducer of pollution, if the electricity powering it comes from a coal plant. Disappointing but true.
OK. Cool. My neighbor has a pretty old one, and it's not hybrid, it's purely electric.

I still prefer researching alternative fuel sources.

[DJPoopypants]

Oh, and if Kerry slammed Bush for ordering the EPA to lie about the health risks to the ground zero workers and nearby families, thus increasing their likelihood of permanent respiratory damage - and the only reason being to get wall street up again?

Well, I'd love to see the admin try to defend ordering the premature deaths of true american heros (civilians and do-gooders, not army types) with a straight face.

But unless the eventual class action lawsuit is somehow redirected towards the Bush family's personal fortune, the US government would have to pay through the nose.

So I guess nobody running for president wants to bring this up.

[Frank Cunha]

Ford and Chevrolet hybrid cars and trucks
http://www.pricequotes.com/cars/newhybrids.html

[mozilla]

Kerry Twice Voted Against Tax Breaks For Ethanol. (S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #44: Rejected 48-52: R 11-32; D 37-20, 3/23/93, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #68: Motion Agreed To 55-43: R 2-40; D 53-3, 3/24/93, Kerry Voted Yea)

Kerry Voted Against Ethanol Mandates. (H.R. 4624, CQ Vote #255: Motion Agreed To 51-50: R 19-25; D 31-25, 8/3/94, Kerry Voted Nay)

Kerry Voted Twice To Increase Liability On Ethanol, Making It Equal To Regular Gasoline. (S. 517, CQ Vote #87: Motion Agreed To 57-42: R 38-10; D 18-32; I 1-0, 4/25/02 Kerry Voted Nay; S. 14, CQ Vote #208: Rejected 38-57: R 9-40; D 28-17; I 1-0, 6/5/03, Kerry Voted Yea)

On The Campaign Trail, Though, Kerry Is For Ethanol. KERRY: “I’m for ethanol, and I think it’s a very important partial ingredient of the overall mix of alternative and renewable fuels we ought to commit to.” (MSNBC/DNC, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Des Moines, IA, 11/24/03)

[BlueMeanie]

Kerry Twice Voted Against Tax Breaks For Ethanol. (S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #44: Rejected 48-52: R 11-32; D 37-20, 3/23/93, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #68: Motion Agreed To 55-43: R 2-40; D 53-3, 3/24/93, Kerry Voted Yea)

Kerry Voted Against Ethanol Mandates. (H.R. 4624, CQ Vote #255: Motion Agreed To 51-50: R 19-25; D 31-25, 8/3/94, Kerry Voted Nay)

Kerry Voted Twice To Increase Liability On Ethanol, Making It Equal To Regular Gasoline. (S. 517, CQ Vote #87: Motion Agreed To 57-42: R 38-10; D 18-32; I 1-0, 4/25/02 Kerry Voted Nay; S. 14, CQ Vote #208: Rejected 38-57: R 9-40; D 28-17; I 1-0, 6/5/03, Kerry Voted Yea)
I thought we'd all been through this on this board already. If you're going to quote voting records, also include all the political subtexts of each bill. There are gives and takes with each proposed bill, and I'd like to know what the issues were (ie, too expensive to undertake? not enough information?)

[BlueMeanie]

******** it. If Mozilla's not going to air this stuff out, I will.

Kerry Voted Twice To Increase Liability On Ethanol, Making It Equal To Regular Gasoline. (S. 517, CQ Vote #87: Motion Agreed To 57-42: R 38-10; D 18-32; I 1-0, 4/25/02 Kerry Voted Nay; S. 14, CQ Vote #208: Rejected 38-57: R 9-40; D 28-17; I 1-0, 6/5/03, Kerry Voted Yea)
On this issue, 4/25/02 and 6/5/03 (http://capwiz.com/lcv/issues/votes/?votenum=208&chamber=S&congress=1081) (EDIT: indented passages only are from the linked info...):

Conservationists support the use of renewable energy, but they also recognize that some renewable fuels may have serious environmental impacts. For instance, ETBE (ethyl tertiary butyl ether), a gas additive made from ethanol, may contaminate groundwater in the same manner as MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether). In addition, research indicates that ethanol inhibits the breakdown of other, more toxic components in gasoline and increases the spread of benzene and other hydrocarbons around leaking storage tanks. And as new ethanol-derived fuel additives are developed, additional public health and environmental hazards may well emerge.

The Senate energy bill (S. 14) included a provision shielding the oil, chemical, and ethanol industries from liability for problems caused by renewable fuels and fuel additives.
On the 4/25/02 vote, Kerry voted "nay" because of the provision in boldface, above.

So, he wasn't against the idea of ethanol, or alternative fuel research, he was against giving the industrialists carte blanche to pollute without being held liable.

On 6/5/03, Sen. Barbara Boxer:
offered an amendment to ensure that companies remain fully liable for problems caused by renewable fuels and fuel additives. On June 5, 2003, the Senate rejected the Boxer amendment by a vote of 38-57 (Senate roll call vote 208). YES is the pro-environment vote.
On this, Kerry voted "Yea" (which lost).

Flip-flop? No.
On The Campaign Trail, Though, Kerry Is For Ethanol. KERRY: “I’m for ethanol, and I think it’s a very important partial ingredient of the overall mix of alternative and renewable fuels we ought to commit to.” (MSNBC/DNC, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Des Moines, IA, 11/24/03)
Yeah, he is for ethanol. Just not for letting the polluters pursue this without better preventive methods.

Again, these usages of voting records for proof of flip-flops is absolutely, mind-bogglingly, head-explodingly (TM, Loney) cheap, unless you provide the text of what, specifically, each measure/bill/etc. was about.

[Finnegan]

The key to Bush's environmental rollbacks is that they have all been done by administrative rule. Hence the public has remained ignorant.

Probably the worst right now is the EPA's proposal to reclassify Mercury from power plants as a non-toxin. Coal burning power plants contribute 40% of all the mercury emitted into the environment.

No I am not making this up. They really are trying to reclassify mercury as a non-toxin.

Very little has been put forward at the Legislative level.

[Crimen y Castigo]

From the League of Conservation Voters: (http://www.envirovictory.org/?id=31)

President George W. Bush has compiled the worst environmental record in the history of our nation, earning him the first ever “F” on the League of Conservation Voters’ (LCV) 2003 Presidential Report Card. His administration’s approach to the environment demonstrates a clear bias toward the interests of corporate polluters and special interests. From Vice President Cheney’s secret energy task force to the appointment of industry lobbyists and officials accused of ethics violations to rewarding major campaign contributors with numerous policy paybacks, President Bush has put corporate interests first – and the public interest in clean air, safe drinking water and sound energy policy last. Even in his 2004 State of the Union Address, President Bush showed his true colors by not even bothering to mention the environment.



Highlights from above link…

Clean Air

THE KERRY RECORD:
Kerry Introduced The Acid Rain Reduction Act in his first year in the Senate…to reduce emissions of acid rain-causing pollutants by setting new standards for coal-burning power plants and light trucks and establishing a fund to pay for reducing emissions [99th Congress, S. 1983, 12/18/85]

Kerry Opposed Rolling Back New Source Review.
…which requires that older plants install pollution control equipment when expanding or upgrading their operations. [John Kerry Campaign Web Site, Environmental Issues]

Kerry Will Reduce The Bush/Cheney Clean Air Act Rollbacks, Fix Loopholes In NSR. As President, John Kerry will reverse the Bush-Cheney rollbacks of the nation’s clean air program and plug the loopholes that exist in the new source review program. [John Kerry’s Comprehensive Vision for a Cleaner Environment, a Stronger Economy, Healthy Communities, 10/03]

THE BUSH RECORD:
The Bush “Clear Skies” Initiative Would Allow Polluting Facilities To Increase Their Emissions. …failed to address emissions of carbon dioxide, the primary cause of global warming and also allowed individual facilities actually to boost their polluting emissions. … It would allow millions of more tons of smog-forming nitrogen oxides and three times more mercury emissions than current law [NRDC, 6/15/03; Baltimore Sun, 9/7/01]

Bush Administration Weakened New Source Review. [Los Angeles Times, 7/27/01; New York Times, 11/23/02]

Bush Will Continue To Push His “Clear Skies” Initiative. If reelected, Bush will continue to push his “Clear Skies” initiative, which environmentalists have said allows polluting facilities to increase their pollution emissions. [Bush Campaign Web Site, Issues: Environment]

Bush Plan To Fight Mercury Leaves Too Much Mercury In Air For Too Long. The Bush mercury proposal leaves too much mercury in the air for too long a period of time, said former Clinton EPA Administrator Carol Browner during a CNN News Night Interview. The EPA itself has stated that the technology exists to achieve a 90 percent reduction in five years, while the Bush proposal would achieve only a 50 – 70 percent reduction over 15 years (15 years from 2003). [CNN News Night, 12/3/03; http://cta.policy.net/epamercury.pdf]
Energy

[Crimen y Castigo]

Global Warming

THE KERRY RECORD:
Kerry Strongly supports policies (like increased fuel efficiency) that would reduce greenhouse gases; supports re-engaging with the international community to go beyond Kyoto
Kerry Cosponsored Legislation With Senator McCain To Increase Fuel Efficiency Standards. In an amendment to the 2002 energy bill, Kerry and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) proposed increasing fuel efficiency standards from 24-miles-per-gallon to 36 miles-per-gallon by 2015. [Detroit Free Press, 3/8/02]

In 2001, Kerry introduced legislation to “speed national action to address global climate change.” Kerry also successfully attached an amendment to the 2001 Bush budget package to “reduce greenhouse gas emissions, address global climate change concerns, protect the global environment, promote domestic energy security and to provide increased funding for voluntary programs that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” [107th Congress, S. Amdt. 249 to S. Amdt. 170, 4/6/01]

THE BUSH RECORD:
Bush abandoned Kyoto Treaty for further “study” of global warming; supports only minimal and voluntary reductions, cut global warming discussion from recent EPA report on the state of the environment

President Bush has steadfastly rejected the Kyoto climate treaty, negotiated in Japan in 1997, which calls for 38 industrialized countries to make cuts in greenhouse gas emissions [Time Magazine, 3/26/01]

The Bush Plan To “Reduce Emissions” Would Actually Increase Them.
In February 2003, the Bush administration announced a new, voluntary initiative aimed at reducing “emissions intensity”—defined as CO2 pollution relative to economic output. Environmentalists pointed out that, with expected economic growth, total emissions will actually increase under the Bush plan. [World Resources Institute, 2/12/03]

Bush Will Continue To Keep The United States Out Of The Kyoto Protocol. If reelected President, Bush will continue to reject the Kyoto Treaty on limiting global-warming gases, because it does not apply to China and other developing countries. Bush also said the treaty could hurt the nation’s economy. [New York Times, Campaign 2004, On The Issues: Environment]