Bush vs. the American Landscape
Wester
May 23, 2001
Bush vs. the American Landscape
By ROBERT REDFORD
ASHVILLE -- 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.
Joshua Heard
you be?
"Wester" <lincoln...@niene-spam.net> wrote in message
news:r2eP6.17522$9D5.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...