What can you say about the environmental record of an administration
that seeks to test pesticides on poor children and pregnant women? That argues
in court that a dam is part of a salmon's natural environment? That places a
timber lobbyist in charge of the national forests and an oil lobbyist in charge
of government reports on global warming? That cuts clean-air inspections at
oil refineries in half, allows Superfund to go bankrupt and permits the mining
industry to pump toxic waste directly into a wild Alaskan lake?
Only this: It's about to get even worse.
Since President Bush was sworn in for a second term, he has not only
continued his unprecedented assault on the environment -- he's intensified it.
In recent months, the administration has opened up millions of acres of pristine
land to developers, allowing them to log and mine without leaving behind "viable
populations" of wildlife. It allowed the import of methyl bromide, a cancer-causing
pesticide that was due to be banned this year under an international accord
signed by Ronald Reagan, and it scrapped plans to regulate lead paint in home-renovation
projects, placing millions of children at risk for brain damage. And on August
8th, taking advantage of solid Republican majorities in both houses of Congress,
Bush signed into law his long-stalled energy bill, a grab bag of industry favors
that provides $10 billion in oil, gas and coal subsidies while exempting Halliburton
and other polluters from environmental laws. The measure approves oil exploration
in marine sanctuaries, greenlights drilling on millions of acres of public land
in the Rocky Mountains and Alaska, fast-tracks sixteen new coal-fired power
plants and provides cradle-to-grave subsidies for new nuclear reactors. In a
grotesque fit of petro-nuclear synergy, the bill even funds research into refining
oil -- using atomic radiation.
The administration's aim is to roll back four decades of environmental progress
-- to an era before the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Clean Water Act
of 1972, the Clean Air Act of 1970 and the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969. "These laws were all started under President Nixon," notes
Sen. Lincoln Chafee, a Republican from Rhode Island. "The environment has
always been something that Republicans have been proud of -- but this administration
sees it differently." Others put it even more bluntly. "In the eyes
of this administration," says Marty Hayden, legislative director of Earthjustice,
the legal arm of the Sierra Club, "Ronald Reagan was an environmental extremist."
Indeed, Bush has undone more environmental progress in the last eight months
than Reagan dreamed of in his full eight years in office. "Their goal is
to take us back to where we were in the Eisenhower administration," says
Buck Parker, Earthjustice's executive director. "Back to a time when the
energy industry had free rein, citizens had no input and there were no environmental
laws to be enforced."
A review of the damage already done in the second term reveals that
the Bush administration has gutted environmental protections across the country,
from Alaskan rain forests to the Gulf of Mexico:
Fouling The Air Nowhere is the administration's contempt for
the environment more evident than in its about-face on mercury, a potent neurotoxin
that causes brain damage in as many as 600,000 children a year. The Clinton
administration, declaring the pollution a "threat to public health,"
ordered coal plants to slash their mercury emissions by ninety percent by 2008.
But in March, the EPA implemented a new rule -- entire sections of which were
drafted by industry lobbyists -- that allows three times the emission of the
Clinton rule and delays implementation of the cleanup until 2030. "I don't
think what the EPA is doing is pro-business," says Attorney General Peter
Harvey of New Jersey, one of thirteen states suing to overturn the rule. "I
think it's anti-humanity."
Drilling The West The administration is approving so many
new permits for oil and gas drilling -- more than 6,000 last year alone -- that
it can hardly keep pace with the paperwork. In February, the Bureau of Land
Management brought aboard five "volunteer" consultants -- whose salaries
are paid in full by industry -- to help with the rubber stamping. "What's
next?" asks Johanna Wald, director of land programs for the National Resources
Defense Council. "Hiring poachers as park rangers?" The energy bill
goes even further, allowing federal authorities to open public lands to drilling
without even considering alternative uses such as hunting and ecotourism. "You
are supposed to find the best use of the land," says Kevin Curtis, vice
president of the National Environmental Trust. "But the energy bill basically
says, by statute, that oil and gas drilling is the best use of that land."
As a result, millions of acres are sure to follow the fate of Jonah Field in
Wyoming, where energy companies have turned the once-untouched desert into a
Mad Max subdivision of drilling platforms, polluted ponds and pipelines. "The
Bush policy is drill, drill, drill at all costs," says Gov. Bill Richardson
of New Mexico. "Those of us who want to protect sensitive ecosystems have
no voice in this debate."
Polluting The Water Even as oil and gas interests get permission
to drill on wild lands, the energy bill exempts most of the industry's 30,000
annual projects from the Clean Water Act -- allowing petrochemical runoff from
well pads to bleed into creeks, rivers and aquifers. The bill also exempts one
of Halliburton's most profitable practices from the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Called hydraulic fracturing, the technique boosts the yield of oil and natural
gas by injecting a toxic stew of benzene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons,
sodium hydroxide and MTBE into the ground. "Fracing" earns Halliburton
$1.5 billion a year -- twenty percent of its total energy revenues -- but also
contaminates groundwater. "The exemption is just a piece of pork for Halliburton,"
says Eric Schaeffer, former director of the EPA's Office of Regulatory Enforcement,
who quit in 2002 to protest the administration's pandering to industry. "It's
astonishing to think that that kind of thing can go unchallenged."
Logging The Forests Mark Rey -- the former timber lobbyist
now in charge of the Forest Service -- bragged to a gathering of timber executives
last December that the administration would double the amount of logging on
public lands in its second term. By May, it had scrapped the Clinton-era regulation
known as the "roadless rule," which placed nearly a third of all national
forests off-limits to industry. The Forest Service has already mapped roads
into 34 million acres. The logging won't come cheap: Last year alone, taxpayers
spent nearly $49 million to carve roads into the Tongass National Forest in
Alaska, the world's largest intact temperate rain forest. In return, the federal
treasury collected less than $800,000 in royalties from industry.
Killing The Fish The energy bill lifts a twenty-five-year
moratorium on oil exploration off the East Coast, allowing industry to conduct
a new "inventory" of oil and gas reserves -- a maritime version of
shock and awe that will pummel the ocean floor with massive acoustic waves and
disrupt marine sanctuaries. Bush has also proposed turning 3,500 idle oil rigs
in the Gulf of Mexico into offshore fish farms to offset losses in traditional
fishing -- a move that will actually increase the agricultural pollution that's
responsible for the decline in fishing in the first place.
Nuking The Future In June, Bush became the first president
to visit a nuclear plant since 1979, when Jimmy Carter toured Three Mile Island
after America's worst atomic accident. "It is time for this country to
start building nuclear power plants again," Bush declared, lauding nuclear
power as "environmentally friendly" and "one of America's safest
sources of energy." To spur construction, the energy bill grants up to
$6 billion in tax credits to new nuclear plants -- subsidies traditionally reserved
for windmills and other green energy sources. The bill will also reimburse power
companies up to $2 billion if their nuclear projects are delayed by citizen
opposition and force taxpayers to foot the bill for any American Chernobyls.
"We're going back to the 1950s -- nuclear power is good for you,"
says Curtis of the National Environmental Trust. "But if it's such a great
source of energy, then why do they have to do so much to remove all the risks
One thing's for certain: there are more rollbacks to come.
The energy bill cleared the Senate only after the administration dropped its
most controversial provision: opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
to drilling. But even before Bush had signed the measure, Sen. Pete Domenici,
chair of the Senate Energy Committee, vowed to resurrect the drilling plan in
September by tacking it onto the budget bill, which is immune to filibuster.
That would effectively lower the number of votes required for Senate passage
from sixty to fifty. "We're going to fight it like hell," says Curtis,
"but there just aren't fifty-one votes."
The legislature isn't the only branch going along with Bush's environmental
assault. Because most of the administration's rollbacks take place behind the
scenes, in a series of bureaucratic nips and tucks to existing rules, they are
subject to challenge in federal court. But thanks to Bush's effort to stack
the bench with anti-regulatory ideologues, the judiciary isn't proving to be
much of an obstacle. In July, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the EPA's
decision not to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions. And in August, Judge Janice
Rogers Brown, one of the reactionary justices confirmed as part of the Senate
deal that defused the "nuclear option," refused to block implementation
of Bush's mercury rule.
Public outrage has forced the administration to give up a few of its wildest
schemes: "blending" raw sewage into drinking water, for example, or
exempting 20 million acres of wetlands from the Clean Water Act. But most of
Bush's efforts to gut the nation's environmental protections are so incremental,
they go unnoticed by the public -- even when they have far-reaching consequences.
In August, the Forest Service quietly adjusted the numbers it uses to weigh
the benefits of logging vs. tourism, slashing the "recreational value"
of the forests by $100 billion. The EPA went a step further: Under its old cost-benefit
formula, the agency valued each human life saved from toxic pollution at $6.1
million. But thanks to a new rule, the cost of polluting people to death has
plummeted: Under Bush, your life has officially been devalued by $2.4 million.