The politics of nature

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.

Sound science. This administration lies and spins like no other.
Their reliance on politcally driven "science" led the the killing of
over 30,000 salmon on the Klamath to appease potato farmers; an
overturn of the snowmobile policy because the judge found their policy
"abritrary and capricious", will see many former BLM employees
involved in the San Rafael Swell land exchange going to prison for
undervaluing the land to be exchanged to line their own pockets, they
don't believe in Global Warming even though most scientists can prove
it is happening, former EPA Chief Whitman had to guts to leave due to
the pressure the administration placed on her to not use sound science
in her enforcement and rulemaking, the list goes on and on.

I love it. This administration will be taking a beating on their
environmental record in this year's election - not for their
environmental legacy but for their lying to the public with proof in
hand.

Ha!

Peace

On 28 Dec 2003 22:07:58 -0800, (Sportsmen
Against Bush) wrote:



"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."

"Sportsmen Against Bush" wrote

I consider myself very moderate and have voted in one election or another
for members of both major parties, two minor ones, and an "independant"

That said, I find "the current administration" to be THE biggest threat to
America, as I was taught to believe in it, at nearly all levels, since the
late 60s, early 70's

However, I'd suggest that to be more effective you drop the "against Bush"
and instead take a "for Something" approach .... everytime you say the man's
name you unconsciously give him air time, for one thing. They have
available, and are expert at using, a huge negative, fear, to
jerk the strings of "knee jerk" voters. Finding stronger negatives would
be difficult, so beating them at the negative game is unlikely.

The hope for administration change lies in the "non knee jerk" segment. And
lies in getting more of that segment to remember and think about what they
want America TO
be, not what they fear ... imho

Larry L wrote:
...
The hope for administration change lies in the "non knee jerk" segment. And
lies in getting more of that segment to remember and think about what they
want America TO
be, not what they fear ... imho

Well said, Larry.

Of those people of voting age in the US, 20% will always vote Dem,
20% will always vote Repub, and 50% won't vote at all. The remaining
10% of the voting age people are the so-called "swing voters" and
they drift in and out of the non-voting demographic.

Soccer moms, NASCAR dads, dumb**** rednecks, who the hell knows what
the "swing voter" will be this time around. I hope the "swing voter"
cares about the environment, outdoor issues, the growing gap between
the mega-rich and the working poor, the huge bill we're handing our
grandkids to pay for the economic folly of the smirking chimp, and
knows that Saddam Hussein didn't mastermind 9/11.

But I wouldn't bet on it.

--
Ken Fortenberry

"rw" wrote

.. and votes for someone like Al Gore (or Howard Dean, or virtually any
Democrat), instead of making an egotistical, feel-good gesture that
subverts the larger purpose.

When I look at what the current administration is doing, I think that
Ralph Nader and his supporters have a lot to answer for.


good point ... my votes for "oddballs" have all been in local offices ....
but still wasted in that sense

although I think "getting people thinking" depends on focusing them on what
the want, not fear, I nonetheless feel that in a choice of evils.... the
current evil is far too evil ...... and we must vote for a lesser one, a
lesser one with hope of winning

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Larry L wrote:

...
The hope for administration change lies in the "non knee jerk"
segment. And
lies in getting more of that segment to remember and think about what they
want America TO
be, not what they fear ... imho


Well said, Larry.

Of those people of voting age in the US, 20% will always vote Dem,
20% will always vote Repub, and 50% won't vote at all. The remaining
10% of the voting age people are the so-called "swing voters" and
they drift in and out of the non-voting demographic.

And a small percentage will vote Green, in a futile, dumb**** "protest"
that hands victory to the party they LEAST want to see in power.

Soccer moms, NASCAR dads, dumb**** rednecks, who the hell knows what
the "swing voter" will be this time around. I hope the "swing voter"
cares about the environment, outdoor issues, the growing gap between
the mega-rich and the working poor, the huge bill we're handing our
grandkids to pay for the economic folly of the smirking chimp, and
knows that Saddam Hussein didn't mastermind 9/11.

... and votes for someone like Al Gore (or Howard Dean, or virtually any
Democrat), instead of making an egotistical, feel-good gesture that
subverts the larger purpose.

When I look at what the current administration is doing, I think that
Ralph Nader and his supporters have a lot to answer for.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

rw wrote in
m:


When I look at what the current administration is doing, I think that
Ralph Nader and his supporters have a lot to answer for.


There's noone to blame for the last election except the Gore team and the
Democratic Party. Alternatives are what maked elections in this country
great. It's not a weakness.

Scott

rw notes:
When I look at what the current administration is doing, I think that
Ralph Nader and his supporters have a lot to answer for.


well-put......
Tom

Scott writes:
There's noone to blame for the last election except the Gore team and the
Democratic Party. Alternatives are what maked elections in this country
great. It's not a weakness.

Yeah, but politics is ultimately about what the end result gets you
policy-wise. The Greens failed to forsee this part, and the Dems failed to
impress it upon anyone.
Enough screwups to go around....note that Nader quickly refused another run,
what the Greens do this time will be interesting.
Tom

"rw" wrote in message
m...
Of those people of voting age in the US, 20% will always vote Dem,
20% will always vote Repub, and 50% won't vote at all. The remaining
10% of the voting age people are the so-called "swing voters" and
they drift in and out of the non-voting demographic.

Where'd ya find this info Ken? I find it very hard to believe.

And a small percentage will vote Green, in a futile, dumb**** "protest"
that hands victory to the party they LEAST want to see in power.

Again, rw where did you find this tid-bit of BS?

Soccer moms, NASCAR dads, dumb**** rednecks, who the hell knows what
the "swing voter" will be this time around. I hope the "swing voter"
cares about the environment, outdoor issues, the growing gap between
the mega-rich and the working poor, the huge bill we're handing our
grandkids to pay for the economic folly of the smirking chimp, and
knows that Saddam Hussein didn't mastermind 9/11.

Or the Elite, Ken, don't for get the Elite!

.. and votes for someone like Al Gore (or Howard Dean, or virtually any
Democrat), instead of making an egotistical, feel-good gesture that
subverts the larger purpose.


When I look at what the current administration is doing, I think that
Ralph Nader and his supporters have a lot to answer for.

If I have to reiterate the Pirates words, I think I will just puke. Give me
a ****in' break, Ralph Nader and his supporters had/have a legitimate right
to be heard. The votes cast for Nader in no way helped nor hurt Dubya.

Op --It's is my vote after-all, and I'll cast it as I damn well please!--

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.