The politics of nature
Bush has said his environmental strategies won't harm nature or man--a
claim some doubt

Chicago Tribune , December 19,2003
by Julie Deardorff

Standing before a group of schoolchildren, President Bush repeated an
oft-stated promise that his environmental policies would stand on hard
scientific research.


"We'll base decisions on sound science," he said in 2001. "We'll call
upon the best minds of America to help us achieve an objective, which
is: cleaner air, cleaner water and a better use of our land."


But the role of science in forging environmental policy has grown into
a central controversy of Bush's presidency. Critics say that although
Bush vowed to "rely on the best of evidence before deciding," many of
his policies dismiss the scientific recommendations of federal
agencies.


From air to wetlands, Bush's policies have sparked a national debate,
prompting a closer look at some of the most controversial
environmental decisions in decades.


Tuesday, a federal judge agreed that science was being misapplied in
one case. On the eve of the snowmobile season's opening day, the
National Park Service was ordered to restore a plan--cast aside by the
Bush administration--that will phase out snowmobile use at Yellowstone
National Park.


In another development that pleased environmental groups, the
administration retreated from a proposal that could have reduced
federal protection for millions of acres of wetlands. Facing public
opposition to the plan, the White House reaffirmed its commitment to
the goal of "no net loss" of wetlands.


White House officials say "sound science" fits with Bush's
market-based approach to environmental protection. The administration
says it's possible to balance the need for biodiversity, clean air and
clean water with economic growth, energy production and reduced
regulation.


Nevertheless, the administration misapplied science when deciding
policy on more than 20 issues, said a report by the minority party
staff of the House Committee on Government Reform. The Democratic
report charged that the administration also has manipulated and
omitted work done by government scientists.


Other federal reports have determined that regulatory agencies,
including the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Park
Service, made decisions on clean air and national park issues based in
part on industry anecdotes and promises.


And leading scientific journals have questioned both the state of
scientific independence and several key Bush appointees who are former
lobbyists from the industries they now regulate.


Snowmobile decision


In the seesaw battle over snowmobiles in Yellowstone, a judge said
this week that the Bush administration's decision to relax the ban set
by the Clinton administration was inconsistent with scientific
findings.


In peak periods, more than 500 snowmobiles might zip through
Yellowstone's west entrance in one hour, motoring along in a single
corridor. Park employees, from snowmobile mechanics to west entrance
workers, have complained of nausea, dizziness, headaches, sore throats
and eye irritation from the high levels of toxic pollutants from
snowmobile emissions. A 2000 National Park Service report on
air-quality concerns related to snowmobiles found that "levels of
individual pollutants found in snowmobile exhaust, including
carcinogens such as benzene, can be high enough to be a threat to
human health."


For wildlife trying to survive harsh winters on stored fat supplies,
the roar of a snowmobile is another threat.


"Research has shown that their heart rates increase when a snowmobile
passes, indicating they are stressed even if they do not move away,"
according to a National Park Service's State of the Parks report. "Any
energy loss affects the animal's ability to survive in the winter."


Several studies by the EPA have said that banning the machines would
eliminate that noise, water and air pollution and is the best way to
preserve the park and its inhabitants.


A letter signed by eight former government officials, including Park
Service directors, urged the Bush administration to rescind its
decision.


"The Park Service should follow its own scientific studies about the
adverse effects of allowing snowmobiles to continue in the parks," the
letter said. "To ignore its conclusion would clearly be to accept
avoidable risks to health and safety, a narrowing of beneficial uses
and weaker preservation of Yellowstone and Grand Teton National
Parks."


The public overwhelmingly supported a ban on the machines set during
the Clinton administration that would have taken effect Wednesday. But
the Bush administration reversed the policy and said snowmobiles could
stay with some restrictions, including a daily limit on the machines
at each gate--which meant fewer snowmobiles during peak periods--and
the use of newer and cleaner machines. Snowmobiles were only allowed
on groomed roads, about 1 percent of the 2.2 million acre park.


The National Park Service argued that its plan struck a balance
between its dual missions of conservation and public access. But on
Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Emmett Sullivan rejected the argument,
saying, "conservation can rarely be trumped."


Sullivan also found that the Bush decision contradicted the scientific
analysis.


"There is evidence in the record that there isn't an explanation for
this change and that the supplemental environmental impact statement
was completely politically driven," he wrote in his 48-page brief.


Critics decry policies


In other instances, including public-land and clean-air issues,
critics say the Bush administration has glossed over scientific
studies in favor of industry.


Citing national energy needs, the administration has pushed to open
the coastal plain of the 19 million-acre Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge for oil exploration and development. Though dropped from this
year's energy bill, the plan still is on the agenda, White House
officials say.


Often described as "America's Serengeti" because of its abundance of
wildlife, the refuge makes up 5 percent of Alaska's North Slope. The
remaining 95 percent is open to drilling.


The Bush administration and industry say drilling can be performed in
an environmentally friendly manner, using new technology to probe
underneath the tundra without destroying the fragile arctic land. This
smaller "footprint" would prevent another sprawling Prudhoe Bay--North
America's largest oil field--which has turned parts of Alaska's North
Slope into a gritty industrial zone.


"The whole world doesn't have to be zero sum," Bush said to
Environmental Youth Award winners in 2001. "It doesn't have to be that
we find more energy and, therefore, the environment suffers. We've got
technologies now to make sure that we explore and protect the
environment at the same time ... we need to be good stewards of the
land."


Putting nature at risk?


But federal reports have found that oil exploration and development
could significantly disturb the caribou, musk oxen, snow geese and
other species in the coastal plain, as well as the vegetation.


Although the plain is home to more than 200 species of birds and
mammals, it is the fate of the porcupine caribou herd that has been a
central issue. In the spring, when the snow recedes, 130,000 caribou
migrate over the mountains to the coastal plain, which is relatively
predator-free and well stocked with nutritious forage.


Three times in the last 18 years, lingering tundra snow has prevented
the caribou from reaching the coastal plain. In those three years,
calf survival was poorer because of less nutrition and higher levels
of predation.


Pipelines and roads associated with oil development in the coastal
plain area would displace the caribou cows, reducing the amount and
quality of forage during and after calving and render the herd more
vulnerable to predators.


"A reduction in annual calf survival of as little as 5 percent would
be sufficient to cause a decline in the porcupine caribou population,"
according to the Fish and Wildlife Service.


"Ecological science is never cut and dry," said wildlife biologist Jim
Sedinger, a member of the National Academy of Sciences committee that
studied the cumulative effects of oil and gas activities on Alaska's
North Slope. "When the administration is bent on development in
particular areas, it gives them an out; you can never say with
certainty what will happen. It's not just [the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge] issue--it's a number of them. They're using
uncertainty to ignore potential impacts of lots of different
activities."


Uncertainty was one of the reasons given after the administration
altered scientific reports that indicate a growing problem with
industry emissions and global warming.


In the EPA's annual 2002 report on air-pollution trends, a chapter on
climate was omitted, even though climate change had been addressed the
previous six years.


In June, the White House revised a section on global warming in the
EPA's comprehensive state of the environment report. Earlier drafts
had contained a section describing the risks of rising global
temperatures.


Former EPA chief Christie Whitman, who stepped down in June, said the
section was deleted because the agency could not agree on the science
in the climate-change debate. But it sparked widespread criticism.
Several members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
called for the White House to release the unaltered version of the EPA
report. The senators also said the action "brings into question the
ability and authority of the EPA or any agency within this
administration to publish unbiased scientific reports."


- - -


To our readers:


"Environmental Battlegrounds," a special photo report that appears as
a separate section in this newspaper, was printed on Monday to
accommodate production demands. Since then, there have been
developments in two of the issues covered in the report.


On Tuesday, a federal judge ordered the Bush administration to abandon
its plan to relax a ban on snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park.


On Wednesday, the administration steered away from a draft proposal
that would have removed federal protection from millions of acres of
wetlands. Those isolated wetlands, which are not connected to other
waterways, will continue to fall under the jurisdiction of the Army
Corps of Engineers.


Neither development is expected to end the debate, ensuring that each
issue will remain an environmental battleground.