#Redford: Bush vs. the American Landscape
zepp
New York Times
May 23, 2001
Bush vs. the American Landscape
By ROBERT REDFORD
NASHVILLE — Listening to President Bush's speech on energy last week
left me yearning for a straight story. His rhetoric seemed intended
either to frighten or to lull one into a false sense of security. It
didn't help that as he presented an energy plan — developed with help
from lobbyists for oil, coal, gas, mining and nuclear power — the
president buttoned up his speech by asking all of us to stop bickering,
to set a new tone and listen to each other. Since Vice President Dick
Cheney refused even to meet with environmental groups, it seems a rather
curious, if not disingenuous, request.
Mr. Bush made it sound so simple. Build tens of thousands of miles of
new pipelines, hundreds of oil and gas wells, and more than a thousand
new power plants, and it will again be "morning in America." He claims
it can be done with little impact. Drilling in the Arctic, off our
beaches or anywhere determined to be "necessary" is a harmless matter,
he says, thanks to new technologies that render the whole enterprise
environmentally friendly. This is simply untrue.
Mr. Cheney has been making a point of telling anyone who will listen
that the federal government hasn't granted a new nuclear power permit in
20 years. Nobody has applied for one. Three Mile Island served as a
cautionary tale that even the most aggressive corporate energy interests
could not ignore. Until now. The president's support for nuclear power
is boldly presented with nary a nod to inherent risks associated with
nuclear waste, nuclear weapons material or power plant accidents.
A look behind the rhetoric reveals that at the heart of the Bush energy
plan are proposals to weaken longstanding environmental safeguards.
Americans fought hard over the last three decades for these protections.
But the Bush plan holds the corporate energy lobby in higher esteem than
ordinary Americans who breathe the air, drink the water and
overwhelmingly support protecting our wilderness. Coal and oil
companies, despite record profits, now seek enormous new taxpayer
subsidies and relief from environmental safeguards as payback for their
campaign support.
Drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is but a piece
of a plan that makes oil and gas exploration and development fair game
on nearly all of our public lands, even extraordinary places that were
awarded protection as national monuments by the previous administration.
The Upper Missouri Breaks in Montana, Grand Staircase-Escalante monument
in Utah, and Vermillion Basin in northwestern Colorado may all become
subject to exploitation. It's nonsense to think new oil and gas
exploration and development won't destroy these incomparable wild
places.
Why not tighten fuel economy standards instead? This alone could, over
the next 50 years, free up 15 times as much oil as could be produced by
drilling in the Arctic, and it would benefit consumers much faster. The
administration wants merely to "study" this option. More study? Well, we
know what that means. For electricity, simply supporting the higher air
conditioner efficiency standards proposed by the previous administration
would save 13,000 megawatts during periods of peak demand in 2020,
equivalent to the output of dozens of power plants.
Thirty years ago, corporate America danced across the nation dumping
toxic waste into our rivers, spewing chemicals into our air and ravaging
pristine public lands, all in the name of progress. In response to the
horrific environmental damage of the postwar era, a broad coalition of
Americans began working to represent public health, safety and
environmental concerns in all levels of government. Now we face an
administration trying to unravel this work.
Unfortunately, we have the examples of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl,
the Exxon Valdez accident and innumerable studies proving pollution's
ill effect on public health to demonstrate that the stakes could hardly
be higher. Solid science clearly shows that global warming exists and
that the administration's drill, dig and burn approach will only make it
worse. I continue to hope for a reasonable dialogue that actually
includes the environmental community, but the administration's posture
suggests that is unlikely. If he does not make environmental concerns
central to his energy policy, President Bush may well leave the next
generation with nothing but ashes to stand in.
Robert Redford, the actor and director, is a board member of the Natural
Resources Defense Council.
--
Liberals are fearless, confident of humanity, outgoing and optimistic
because they believe most people are pretty much like themselves.
Conservatives are fearful, mistrusting, angry, bitter and afraid because
they, too, believe most people are pretty much like themselves.
Not dead, in jail, or a slave?
Thank a liberal!
For the finest leftist/liberal commentary,
visit http://www.snowcrest.net/zepp/zeppol.htm
For a wide selection of leftist/liberal links
visit http://www.snowcrest.net/zepp/lynx.htm
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=