Thursday, March 13, 2003
Copyright © Las Vegas Mercury

Editor's Note: Arsenic and old Bush

While all eyes are focused on the impending war with Iraq, President Bush has taken the opportunity to push a rape-and-pillage environmental agenda that, in the long term, could be every bit as devastating to the nation as our overseas military conflicts.

Bush's reckless approach to the environment became evident right after he took office when he put on hold an executive order by President Bill Clinton that reduced the allowable level of arsenic in drinking water. That blatantly political move, later rescinded, revealed Bush's cynical pro-business stance on ecological matters.

Then there's the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, which Bush, a former oil executive, wants to open up for drilling. A scientific report released last week reveals that 30 years of oil exploration in Alaska has had major effects on the environment and wildlife. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said of the report, "You couldn't ask for more concrete scientific proof of the adverse impact on the environment that is caused by drilling--and, spin as they might, the Bush administration can't reconcile this evidence with their push to drill in one of our most precious national treasures."

Speaking of spin, on clean air Bush administration officials are attempting to obfuscate what is really going on. Bush's new clean air bill is dubbed the "Clear Skies Initiative" when it's actually the opposite. Rather than enhancing the provisions of the Clean Air Act, it would weaken them.

For example, the existing Clean Air Act requires power plants to meet public health standards for their emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides by 2010. The Bush bill would give the plants until at least 2018 to comply. The "Clear Skies" scheme also allows power plants to continue emitting mercury, a toxin that is extremely dangerous to children, far beyond the current deadline. The existing regulation requires the plants to install new technology to limit mercury emissions by 2007. Bush would allow the plants to continue emitting massive amounts of mercury through 2018.

If Bush's "Clear Skies" rules are approved, they will represent a major setback in the battle against global warming, not to mention a continuation of unsightly, unhealthful smog problems across the country. (By the way, Bush's bill would permit two heavily polluting power plants in Southern Nevada to continue fouling our air.)

There's a presidential election coming up. The Democratic Party has half a dozen serious candidates (including the aforementioned Sen. Kerry) who have announced their intention to run against Bush. Some have been more specific than others about their platforms, but the economy tops everybody's list. That's smart and proper. But the environment also should be a major plank of any Democrat's strategy to beat the president.

Bush's environmental record and positions do not jibe with the attitude of the large majority of Americans. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Bush continues to suggest that global warming does not exist. A scientific panel appointed by his administration reported recently that Bush's global warming program lacks "vision, executable goals, clear timetables and criteria for measuring progress." A leading Republican political strategist conceded in a recent memo that Bush is most vulnerable on environmental issues.

For or against going to war with Iraq--clearly we're a nation divided on that point--most Americans are for the environment. They want clean air, clean water, vibrant national parks and protected wilderness. They aren't willing to sacrifice these resources just so the Bush administration's industry brethren can get richer. They aren't radical about it but, unlike President Bush, they don't bow at the feet of heavy industry.

Watch the war. But let's not allow the Bush administration to slip anything by us while we're not looking.

The rightward lurch

The decades-old right-wing lament about the "liberal media" persists. Recent events, however, should put to rest any lingering belief that the electronic media, at least, present a liberal-skewed perspective.

The cable news network MSNBC canceled liberal-leaning host Phil Donahue after seven months and replaced him with hate-mongering conservative radio host Michael Savage. The network, attempting to compete with the ratings growth of the openly conservative Fox News Channel, also has hired former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura and former House majority leader Dick Armey.

Donahue was an anomaly in cable news. Most of his TV talk colleagues are moderate to conservative. Chris Matthews, a former aide to House Speaker Tip O'Neill and a newspaper columnist, has lurched to the center, if not the right, on "Hardball." The other political roundtable shows rarely feature a genuine liberal.

As for Savage, he makes Rush Limbaugh seem demure. Savage is openly homophobic and racist. He called the Million Mom March the "million dyke march" and has described developing nations as "turd world nations."

The print media offer much more diversity of political viewpoints than radio or television. Even the super-right Review-Journal throws a liberal screed on the op-ed page now and then. And yet print's reach--and therefore the reach of liberal voices--is gradually diminishing as citizens rely more and more on electronic sources for their information.

This is not a good trend, folks. Remember, reading is fun.

--GEOFF SCHUMACHER