GUESS WHAT?? **BUSH** is the "environmentalist" and GORE?? well...read on.

If Democrats and the Gore ticket want to tar Bush with the paint of harming the environment, many Republicans want to do the reverse by tarring Gore as an environmental extremist, or as Rush Limbaugh would put it, an environmental wacko. Perhaps there is a reason why 61 of our countrys top environmental activists have formed a new group, Environmentalists Against Gore, and have accused the Vice President of selling out the cause to the timber barons, polluters and big oil and chemical companies. As David Brower says in their announcement, released on July 21, Gore has sold out American citizens, workers, taxpayers and the environment more times than we can count. These activists hate Gore so much that they say even having George W. Bush in the White Housewill lead to better protection for nature and wildlife than we can expect from Al Gore. Gore talks about the threat of global warming, they argue, yet shows very little leadership to stop it.


http://www.frontpagemag.com/archives/radosh/2000/rr08-30-00.htm


Gore, Bush and the Environment

FrontPageMagazine.com | August 30, 2000
get a printer-friendly version of this article



IT DOES NOT seem to be an issue in the campaign, but nevertheless, the position of the two major party candidates on the environment always lurks beneath the surface. On the face of it, both George W. Bush and Al Gore are pledged to pursue environmentally friendly policies. Indeed, in his speech to the Republican convention, Bush stressed that our government has to be committed to creating clean air and water. Nevertheless, the common consensus is that on this issue, Gore has the edge. After all, he is associated most of all with campaigns to save the earth. As author of the book Earth in the Balance, reissued for the campaign by his publisher, Gore can try to stand as an expert who has done his own research and writing on behalf of the cause of a clean and safe environment.

At the same time, Gore and other Democrats have done their best to try and paint Bush and the Republicans as enemies of a safe earth, as a group willing to ignore the need for new policies, all on behalf of placating industrial, chemical and other corporations whose policies result in pollution, chemical spills, a less safe ozone layer, and other measures that defile the universe. Indeed, Bush has been smeared so many times as an enemy of conservation, and he has been held responsible for a supposed growth in carcinogens in the Texas air, with more toxic releases in his state than anywhere else in America. Go to a college campus, speak with an ecologically concerned student, and you will immediately get a response that says in effect: Gore will protect the environment; Bush will poison it.

Now, the journalist Greg Easterbrook, a Senior Editor of The New Republic, and a writer on environmental issues, addresses himself to these issues in an important path-breaking article in the September issue of The Atlantic Monthly. What Easterbrook argues is that the reality of both candidates positions is in stark contrast to how they are both usually portrayed. Bush is not an enemy of preserving our national heritage, nor is Gore the environmental extremist that many Republicans claim he is. As he writes: Both are more centrist on environmental issues than is commonly assumed. And either, if elected, may have a considerable surprise in store for us -- a pleasant, green surprise.

This assertion will undoubtedly shock and annoy partisans of both candidates, but Easterbrook provides a great deal of material to make his case. While he addresses the positions of both candidates, what he says about Bush -- given the charges regularly made against him on this issue- are far more important. Taking up the charge that Texas is an ecological hell, that it is the nations smog capital, and that it has replaced Los Angeles as one of the worst states to live in, Easterbrook presents a case of how Bushs critics have essentially used the old trick of lying with statistics.

Evaluating the charges necessitates an understanding of what statistics really do show. He writes: The indicators themselves can be misleading. For instance, Houston became the smog capital during a period in which its pollution levels declined. Indeed, overall smog readings for Houston have gone down in the past twenty years; the only reason it is rated as the smog capital of our cities is that southern Californias ratings declined more rapidly than pollution in Houston, due to stiff local anti-smog measures. But this does not mean, he stresses, that Texas air has gotten much worse. Gore and the environmental groups are only too happy, he adds, to let this false assumption stand.

In fact, Easterbrook notes that Texas air quality has greatly improved, and during the first half of Bushs governorship, the worst chemical pollutants, the kind that produce smog and acid rain, have all declined more rapidly in Texas than in the nation as a whole. As we all know, oil is a main industry in Bushs state; sixty percent of the nations petrochemical output is there, and these plants are the main source of toxic emissions from manufacturing. Despite this, Texas is better at policing its violators than other states, and toxic emissions have fallen as much as anywhere in the nation. As for George W. Bush, he has been on the side of the angels. Last year, we are informed by Easterbrook, Bush supported legislation requiring most Texas power plants to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions by 50 percent and acid-rain compounds by 25 percent -- greater reductions than are required by most other states. Some critics dont like the states self-audit system, by which corporations voluntarily disclose pollution violations. They wont work, is the argument. Easterbrook shows that in fact they have worked, and if support of such a program is anti-environmental, then Al Gore is just as guilty. On the Federal level, the Vice President is a supporter of the EPAs Project XL, in which business and regulators negotiate voluntary compliance agreements -- similar to the Bush program in Texas.

Moreover, Easterbrook informs us that Bushs predecessor as Governor of Texas, the liberal Democrat Ann Richards, had a modest environmental record, and that by responding to the electorate and their concern for the environment, Bush shows that he knows how to listen to his constituents. And he notes that his environmental subcommittee for the campaign is composed of moderates, academics, and former EPA officials. In other words, hardly the staff of a villainous opponent of clean air and water!

If Democrats and the Gore ticket want to tar Bush with the paint of harming the environment, many Republicans want to do the reverse by tarring Gore as an environmental extremist, or as Rush Limbaugh would put it, an environmental wacko. Perhaps there is a reason why 61 of our countrys top environmental activists have formed a new group, Environmentalists Against Gore, and have accused the Vice President of selling out the cause to the timber barons, polluters and big oil and chemical companies. As David Brower says in their announcement, released on July 21, Gore has sold out American citizens, workers, taxpayers and the environment more times than we can count. These activists hate Gore so much that they say even having George W. Bush in the White Housewill lead to better protection for nature and wildlife than we can expect from Al Gore. Gore talks about the threat of global warming, they argue, yet shows very little leadership to stop it.

Referring to this kind of attitude, Easterbrook comments that Gores problem is that he uses overwrought environmental language, but that in practice, he has pursued a moderate policy, often standing against the positions of the activists. As he puts it, Gores performance in office has been sufficiently centrist to anger activists, and that while he sought the support of the left with rhetoric, he governed with commons sense and temperance. In particular, Easterbrook cites his decision not to shut down a toxic-waste incinerator in East Liverpool, Ohio that stands next to an elementary school---a decision that has lead protestors to dog him at campaign stops. And most interesting is his discussion of the so-called Superfund legislation meant to create corporate liability wherever toxic waste is found. This might sound good to some activists, but as Easterbrook argues, its consequence was to render investors not willing to buy or build on land once the repository of chemical waste, since they would then be held liable for what took place before they made their investment. Capital has thus not moved to urban manufacturing areas where there might have been a problem, and banks have stopped lending funds for urban industrial zones. One might think liberal Democrats would bemoan this outcome, but as he writes, the Clinton-Gore administration has let this flawed legislation stand.

What Easterbrook argues might work is what he calls market-based environmental initiatives that have been proven to work. What candidate would be willing to move in this direction? His answer is that Gore has not proposed such viable reforms, and has accepted the status quo as successful. Easterbrook thinks that a President Gore might be able to use his clout as chief executive to twist Congressional arms on behalf of such market initiatives, and could revamp environmental law. He also thinks that a President Bush could pull the equivalent of a Nixon China initiative, using his clout as chief executive to enact new and pioneering environmental programs, particularly against global warming. In either case, he argues that the stereotypes of both candidates are wrong; both are in favor of a safer environment, and both hold good intentions.

Partisans of both Gore and Bush will obviously disagree with his estimates of what either candidate might do if elected. But thanks to Greg Easterbrook, he has moved the debate to a new level, away from the propaganda we have been used to hearing. This in itself is something to be thankful for.

Ronald Radosh is a regular columnist and book reviewer for FrontPageMagazine.com. A former leftist and currently Professor Emeritus of History at City University of New York, Radosh has written many books, including The Rosenberg File (with Joyce Milton). His soon-to-be-published memoir is entitled Commies: A Journey Through the Old Left, the New Left and the Leftover Left.



-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), August 30, 2000

Answers

HERE's the part for ANITA:
In fact, Easterbrook notes that Texas air quality has greatly improved, and during the first half of Bushs governorship, the worst chemical pollutants, the kind that produce smog and acid rain, have all declined more rapidly in Texas than in the nation as a whole. As we all know, oil is a main industry in Bushs state; sixty percent of the nations petrochemical output is there, and these plants are the main source of toxic emissions from manufacturing. Despite this, Texas is better at policing its violators than other states, and toxic emissions have fallen as much as anywhere in the nation. As for George W. Bush, he has been on the side of the angels. Last year, we are informed by Easterbrook, Bush supported legislation requiring most Texas power plants to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions by 50 percent and acid-rain compounds by 25 percent -- greater reductions than are required by most other states. Some critics dont like the states self-audit system, by which corporations voluntarily disclose pollution violations. They wont work, is the argument. Easterbrook shows that in fact they have worked, and if support of such a program is anti-environmental, then Al Gore is just as guilty. On the Federal level, the Vice President is a supporter of the EPAs Project XL, in which business and regulators negotiate voluntary compliance agreements -- similar to the Bush program in Texas.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), August 30, 2000.

LMAO! Talking to yourself again Creep? Get a grip. Come back to reality...

Texas air pollution nearly worst in nation; study launched

Monday August 28 1:09 PM ET By Amy Norton

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Government planes will be cutting through the smog-filled skies of eastern Texas daily during the next month in order to come up with better pollution control methods, the US Department of Energy (DOE) has announced.

A team of researchers, including 150 experts from around the nation, will be studying levels of ozone and other pollutants in the Houston area, where chemical emissions and hot, heavy air combine to create one of the country's worst air-quality problems. According to the DOE, the Texas 2000 Air Quality Study is one of the most comprehensive air pollution studies ever launched in the US.

In addition to the research airplanes, 60 ground-based monitoring stations will collect data on ozone, carbon monoxide, fine particles and other pollutants. Scientists will study how the chemicals mix and react in the environment under different weather conditions. Understanding these variables could lead to better pollution control, according to Peter Daum, one of the researchers leading the study.

Houston and southern California have the country's worst air pollution problems, Daum told Reuters Health. Like other states, he said, Texas has tried to cut emissions from cars and industrial sources, but the Houston region has unique weather conditions that exacerbate the man-made side of the problem. For instance, pollutants carried away by land winds end up being sent back by the coastal city's ``sea breeze.''

One goal of the study is to figure out the proportions of each pollutant in the region's atmosphere. This, according to Daum, will help them decide which pollution controls need to be tightened.

-- cpr (suffering@from.delusions), August 30, 2000.

cpr,

Here's an article in the September issue of The Atlantic Monthly that may interest you:

"Green Suprise?"

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/09/easterbrook.htm

-- flora (***@__._), August 30, 2000.

FLORA.............READ.........what I posted. The link you posted is the SOURCE of the comments in my post.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), August 30, 2000.

AND..........for the DUMMY who posted the Yahoo page: WE HAVEN"T HAD RAIN IN 60 days and may go another week without it.

As a result, the pollution is seriously out of hand. NOTE THAT THE ARTICLE REFERRED TO ABOVE IS ***NOT ME** but a former leftist QUOTING A GREENIE THAT "attacks on Bush are UNFAIR".

LEARN TO READ before you POST YOUR BULL SHIT.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), August 30, 2000.

Charlie:

I'm questioning why I should take seriously anything this Easterbrook says. Who is Easterbrook?"

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 30, 2000.

Flora:

Thank you for the source article. Quite a lot was lost in the translation, and quite a bit of sensationalizing by emphasizing one side versus the other.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 30, 2000.

Let me get this right. A CCNY Professor (conservative) agrees that a Leftist has some good points in a major publication adored by Leftists (that alone is a shock).

AND **YOU** link to a few posters on the net as a "counter"?? http://www.mail-archive.com/crashlist%40egroups.com/msg00280.html

"Crash List" sort of says it all.

Greenie E-Doomers??

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), August 30, 2000.

Bush stinks, Texas stinks, and everybody that lives in Texas stinks. Just look at Creeper, he is one of their model citizens.

-- p.u. (texas@smells.like.shit), August 30, 2000.

Thanks for illustrating why we need Nader for President.

-- Nader (Nader@for.prez), August 30, 2000.

My point was simply that Easterbrook is about as reliable in his information as Rush Limbaugh, explained further here.

Just because you like what he utters, Charlie, doesn't mean he's correct.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 30, 2000.

Don't listen to these twerps Anita, anybody with half a brain can see that they're in denial because they want a president that favors the corporate pigs. Rush Limbaugh is another one of the lowest forms of life on Earth, right down there in the sludge with the likes of Creeper. They all jerk off at pictures of each other when they dream about all the money can steal from the middle class if their sleazy plan works. Bush has turned Texas into a disgrace of gun-toting alcoholic thieves and killers, their kids dying in polluted neighborhoods and run-down schools.

-- (texas@sad.disgrace), August 30, 2000.

So much hyperbole and emotions from both sides. The truth, as always, is somewhere in the middle.

Texas doesn't smell that bad, and Gore isn't an extremist green loony.

Now play nice.

-- (haven't@you.all.learned.a.lesson?), August 31, 2000.

Anita,

MARIA was right about you. LINK

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), August 31, 2000.

Hey creep, there ain't nothin posted by Maria on that thread there dimwit. Are you trippin again? Ask your fatass wife to shove them meds down your throat now before you go bezerko again.

-- (cpr@mental.basketcase), August 31, 2000.