June
2001
Guest
Editorial: Good News for the Environment: Cheney Proclaims
Conservation a Virtue
By Jeff Lydon
|
|
|
When the Supreme Court appointed George W. Bush President,
many environmentalists thought their worst fears had come to pass. But
the Bush administration, headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, has put
those fears to rest, proving itself a courageous ally of the environmental
movement.
Last month, Bush signed an international treaty banning 12 lethal chemicals
(all of which were already banned in the U.S.), indicating that he’s
willing to defy the will of corporate America, especially when there’s
absolutely nothing at stake. Even in his non-actions, Bush has shown
leadership. He didn’t scrap President Clinton’s lead emissions
policy. He didn’t scrap higher efficiency standards Clinton set
for water heaters and washing machines—thanks to the lobbying of
industry officials, who, in a rare display of integrity and common sense,
actually fought for the regulations. And Bush even agreed to increase
spending on national parks, although his plan allocates 98 percent of
the increase toward the creation of roads and buildings.
Admittedly, the new administration’s environmental record thus
far isn’t spotless. Bush and company seem relieved that Clinton’s
ban on development in national forests won’t stand, and even more
relieved that they can deflect blame for scuttling this immensely popular
policy toward the courts. Then there was the back-peddling on the campaign
promise to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in concert with killing the
Kyoto Protocol. But Bush only made such decisions out of concern for
the taxpayers’ well-being, citing the “incomplete scientific
knowledge of the cause of and solutions to global climate change.”
He’s right: fully two percent of the scientific community is not
yet convinced that human activity can cause global climate change.
Bush also disappointed environmentalists by rescinding stricter policies
regulating levels of arsenic in drinking water. But again, the administration
is going to bat for the average American, in this case protecting us
from old world propaganda. Just because the European Union and the World
Health Organization agreed with the findings of an exhaustive 10-year
study on arsenic by the National Academy of Sciences, it doesn’t
mean we should. Bush—standing right behind the Vice President—showed
that we are environmental leaders, not followers. Environmental Protection
Agency Director Christy Whitman added that we’ll make our final
decisions on arsenic “based on sound science.” (She also promised
to conduct a cost benefit analysis of arsenic levels in case sound science
dictates investments in safe drinking water that undermine tax cuts.)
But what do a few minor environmental set-backs matter in the face of
Dick Cheney’s bold proclamation: “Conservation may be a sign
of personal virtue?” Cheney, the new voice of the environmental
movement, has vindicated all things green. Both Cheney and Bush even
have geothermal heating and cooling systems in their private homes.
True, they don’t recommend such measures for the rest of the nation,
as Cheney followed his comment by admitting that conservation “is
not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy.”
Critics of Bush and Cheney charge that the pair invite special interests
to dictate conservation policy. The New York Times reported, “Scientists
at the country’s national laboratories projected enormous energy
savings if the government takes aggressive steps to encourage energy
conservation in homes, factories, offices, appliances, cars, and power
plants (5/6/01).” Three years of research conducted by five national
laboratories have produced an overwhelming case to support this claim.
But these scientists are a cold bunch, lacking all compassion for the
industries looking to gain from an executive branch that emphasizes
a balanced approach in which supply, supply, and supply are granted
equal weight.
Critics of the administration also point toward the multiple solutions
that conservation promises to deliver. It will lower gas prices at the
same time as reducing air pollution and smog. It will curtail global
warming at the same time as saving consumers money. It will decrease
dependence on foreign oil while allowing us to protect wilderness and
preserve natural resources. But such notions don’t take into account
the revolutionary innovation in economic theory that the Bush-Cheney
plan has taught us: using less energy will have no impact on how much
energy we have. There is no relationship between supply and demand and
price. We once believed the relationship between this trinity determined
the parameters of free enterprise. Yet Bush and Cheney have done away
with this quaint but dated concept, by teaching us that decreasing demand
will have no effect on supply. Environmentalists ought to be glad to
have such progressive genius expressed by our president; he may be the
most environmentally-friendly Republican to hold the office since the
last time a Bush was there.
Cheney’s recently released energy plan, signed by Bush, devotes
a balanced one-tenth of one percent of expenditures toward incentives
for energy-efficient products. (Remember that when we talk about a balanced
approach, balance is a relative term.) The plan makes it easy for developers
to bypass “overly burdensome” environmental restrictions,
and harder for federal agencies to protect the environment, because
from now on they’ll need to submit an energy impact analysis on
any proposal that might effect energy supply. That way, industries getting
practically nothing for research on alternative energy sources will
have protections just like endangered species and threatened wetlands
so that they can continue providing no alternative energy sources far
into the future. By relying almost exclusively on the coal and oil that
powered our nation in the 19th and 20th centuries, Bush quells the anxieties
of the new millennium with a reassuring message. We just don’t
know what it is yet. But the young administration has given us reason
to keep the faith; after all, it has consistently met our expectations.
Environmentalists are gearing up to defeat Bush’s nominations for
senior-level environmental regulatory jobs, just because the nominees
have devoted their careers to eliminating environmental regulations.
The list includes a lawyer from the National Cattleman’s Beef Association,
a lobbyist from Monsanto, and a lawyer from General Electric. Having
deplorable environmental records and lacking any background in ecology
doesn’t mean they won’t police their old bosses. After all,
Bush was once an alcoholic and habitual coke abuser, but now he’s
tough on drugs. Maybe these nominees will be like that. Soon they’ll
be back with their old companies, probably with substantial raises,
but that wouldn’t stop men of personal virtue from doing their
jobs.
Jeff Lydon
Send your words of support and praise to: president@whitehouse.gov.
