Sigh. Keeping the planet inhabitable seems like such a no-brainer. And yet in spite of heaps, mounds, and mountains of hard scientific data, some still opt for the more "unpredictable" narrative about the environment. A recent New Republic editorial pooh-poohs the green movement's doomsday warnings as the product of a morosely overactive imagination. It then goes on to berate Democrats for a "symbiotic and increasingly pernicious" relationship with environmentalists. The Bush administration isn't getting the credit it deserves for protecting the environment, the editorial adds; moreover, the Green/Dem coalition has played its cards wrong by refusing to negotiate on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
The trouble is, some of the facts don't square with The New Republic's interpretation.
TNR denies that there is "any serious proposal before Congress or the White House that would substantially undermine the laws responsible for [the past decades'] decline in pollution." This presents a strikingly false picture. How has Bush undermined environmental laws? Let's consult the Natural Resources Defense Council's (NRDC) surprisingly readable 65-page report titled "Rewriting the Rules: The Bush Administration's Assault on the Environment." The answers? Public lands. Endangered species. Superfund. Mining. Wetlands. Clean air. Clean water. And so forth.
As for TNR's claim that relaxing emissions standards would simply slow the reduction of pollutants, we invite you to visit the National Environmental Trust's report on Bush's Clear Skies Initiative (the name itself reflects Orwellianism at its finest). If you don't trust the source, check out the footnotes: The info comes from Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) briefings to the Edison Electric Institute (obtained through the Freedom of Information Act) and shows just how much Bush's plan would "relax" the Clean Air Act. Try 200 percent more mercury than existing law would allow, for example.
Then TNR claims the administration has "imposed strict, new regulations on diesel pollution and arsenic in drinking water." Actually, these tough new regulations were Bill Clinton's, and Bush did everything he could to torpedo them. The moment Bush arrived in the White House, he put a freeze on all laws not officially published, including one to tighten diesel regulations. The administration only backed off after a coalition of environmentalists, automakers, and diesel-engine manufacturers told the press about the 8,000 premature deaths per year that would result from ignoring Clinton's proposal. The issue isn't dead yet: EPA chief Christie Todd Whitman has convened a commission to check on progress toward meeting the standards, which poses a perfect opportunity for the oil industry (with the exception of BP, which has seen the light) to derail the legislation. The story is similar with arsenic: At this time last year, the NRDC was threatening to sue the Bush administration for trying to keep Clinton's higher arsenic standards from being enacted. Congress had to pass a law to prevent the legislation from being reopened for debate and possible changes.
Details of Bush's environmental heroism aside, Democratic lawmakers and environmentalists are hardly walking in lockstep these days. One need look no further than greens' angry reactions to the recent passage, 88-to-11, of the Senate energy bill. Moreover, TNR claims the Democrats sacrificed increased fuel-economy standards and other crucial environmental goals for the sake of saving ANWR. Yet this undercuts the magazine's related claim about collusion between Dems and greens. Environmentalists battled fiercely for raising gas-mileage standards and lost thanks to a crushing lack of support on both sides of the aisle.
We all know how enticing it can be sometimes to rhapsodize about nature's resiliency, and to wonder aloud what planet doom-and-gloom enviros are living on. But the answer is, the same one as everybody else.
