THE ENVIRONMENTAL FIRE SALE
Ernest Partridge, The Crisis Papers
From Big Bush Lies,
edited by Jerry "Politex" Barrett
(RiverWood Books, 2004).
Web and Hard-Copy Publication only with
Permission of the Author and Publisher
If there is a unifying theme to Bush's environmental policy, it is this:
"What my corporate sponsors want, my corporate sponsors get." And in fact,
it is difficult to find a single environmental proposal, executive order, or
draft legislation from Bush's White House that deviates from the wish list
of his corporate contributors. “Every administration rewards its friends,”
wrote Vanity Fair, “but never has there been a wholesale giveaway of
government agencies to the very industries they’re meant to oversee.”
This sellout is painfully apparent as we enumerate the array of foxes that
the Bush Administration has appointed to guard the environmental henhouse:
-
Gale Norton, Secretary of the Interior. (Lobbyist, mining industry).
-
James Connaughton, Chairman of the President’s Council on
Environmental Quality. (Lawyer representing asbestos and toxic polluters).
-
Stephen Griles, Deputy Administrator of the EPA. (Lobbyist for mining
and energy industry).
-
Jeffrey Holmstead, Director of the Air Division of the EPA. (Lawyer
for utility industry).
-
Mark Rey, Undersecretary for Natural Resources and Environment, Dept.
of Agriculture (Twenty years employment with various timber trade
associations).
-
Mike Leavitt, Bush’s nominee for EPA Administrator, is noteworthy for
his struggles, as Governor of Utah, with the agency that he has been
designated to lead. Leavitt has championed deregulation and has resisted
enforcement of clean air standards against Utah industries.
And presumably in appreciation of his government “service” to industry,
in September, John Pemberton, formerly the chief of staff of the EPA’s air
and radiation office, joined Southern Co., a power utility with the second
worst pollution record in the nation.
Because of this allegiance to the interests of his sponsors, Bush's
environmental policies diverge radically from the interests and preferences
of the general public. This immediately raises a huge problem for the Bush
Administration; namely, how to sugar-coat this bitter pill of environmental
sell-out so that the public will swallow it.
From the Bush Administration's encounter with this problem follows all its
deceptions, evasions and lies regarding the environment.
The most formidable roadblock in the Bushevik sell-out of the environment
is, science. for it is the scientists who first brought the
environmental crisis to public attention and continue to validate its
urgency today. Evading the challenge of scientifically confirmed facts
requires all the virtuouso skills in sophistry and public relations in use
by the Bushista apologists.
“Epistemology” is the philosopher’s high-fallutin’ word for “theory
of knowledge.” While scientists and philosophers delve deeply into this
issue, in fact everybody has an epistemology, albeit the theory of knowledge
of the vast majority of human beings is unconscious, implicit and primitive.
Ask anybody, “why do you believe such-and-such to be true,” and you will
discover their epistemology – most often, some kind of conventionalism or
authoritarianism: e.g., “why? -- because everybody believes that!,” or “I
heard it on FOX,” or “‘cause the Bible tells me so,” and so on.
Similarly, George Bush, who evidently hasn’t entertained a philosophical
thought since his student days at Yale (if then), betrays his epistemology
and his metaphysics in his policies and public pronouncements in general,
and in particular in his attitude toward science.
With regard to the natural environment, Bush displays a kind of
“subjectivism gone mad.” – an unwavering faith in the “feeling” of his
fabled “gut.” According to the Bushevik subjective metaphysic, the physical
world is also just what he (or his corporate sponsors) want it to be:
scientific expertise and proof be damned. Bush’s thought-world is
uncomplicated and free of unintended consequences. This world need not be
studied in order to be understood –– the opinions of “experts” are of no
interest to Bush. Rather, the state of the world is best apprehended by “gut
feeling.”
In short: “If I don’t want to believe what the scientists tell me, then it
ain’t so.”
Of course, this confounds and enrages the scientists. But because relatively
few voters are aware of or concerned with what the scientists think, and
because scientists tend to be apolitical, this attitude is of little
political consequence to the Bushistas.
Even so, the general public is concerned with the condition of their natural
environment – the climate, the air, the water, fellow species, natural
ecosystems, wild places, etc. So Bush’s essential task remains that of
appearing “environmentally friendly” to the public, all the while he is
giving the environmental store away to his corporate friends.
To accomplish this, of course, he must lie. And so he does.
LIE #1: Global Warming Has Not Been Proven and Needs Further Study.
When Al Gore brought up the issue of global warming in the 2000 presidential
debates, Bush’s immediate response was that there is still a great deal of
scientific dispute about the causes of and appropriate responses to climate
change. As further scientific evidence has accumulated, it has been met with
an unvarying litany of “not proven” and “more study needed,” reminiscent of
the decades of denial from the tobacco industry.
Eventually, the tobacco industry caved in under the weight of scientific
evidence. The Bushista response to the challenge of climate science has been
to ignore it, and to hope that no one will notice.
Not proven? Consider the evidence.
In January, 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United
Nations consortium of more than two thousand scientists, published its third
report. The IPCC report concluded, with 90% confidence, that by 2100,
average global temperatures will rise between 2.3 and 9 degrees Fahrenheit.
Commenting on this report, seventeen of the world's scientific academies
stated:
The work of the IGCC represents the consensus of the international
scientific community on climate change science. We recognize the IPCC as
the world's most reliable source of information on climate change and its
causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus... The
balance of the scientific evidence demands effective steps now to avert
damaging changes to Earth's climate. (Science, 18 May 2001, p.
1261).
Responding to the IPCC report, Donald Kennedy, editor of Science (the
journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science) wrote:
“[Scientific] consensus as strong as the one that has developed around this
topic [of global warming] is rare in science... [T]here is little room for
doubt about the seriousness of the problem the world faces... (Science,
30 March 2001). Not content with the findings of the IPCC, Bush asked the
National Academy of Sciences to prepare a report which "summed up science's
current understanding of global climate change." That report confirmed that
"the conclusion of the IPCC that the global warming that has occurred in the
last 50 years is likely the result of increases in greenhouse gases
accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community."
(National Academy of Sciences, June 6, 2001).
Bush’s response was to “shoot the messenger.” Specifically, the Bush
Administration proceeded, at the behest of his Exxon-Mobil sponsors, to
orchestrate the ouster of the IPCC Chair, Robert Watson, and replacing this
eminent atmospheric scientists with an Indian economist, Rejandra Pachauri.
More denial was to follow.
For the annual EPA report of 2003, the EPA staff prepared an accurate
account of scientific consensus on global warming. The White House returned
a demand that key sections of the account be deleted, and other parts be
revised to convey a sense of uncertainty not shared by the scientists. In an
internal memo, the EPA warned that the White House revision “no longer
accurately represents scientific consensus on climate change.” The end
result was that the entire section on global warming was cut from the
report.
The IPCC chair ousted, the EPA report on global warming deleted, perpetual
calls for “further study” – all this has had no effect whatever on the
physical and chemical laws that apply to the earth’s climate.
And so, the atmosphere continues to heat up.
As the industrial nations struggle to deal cooperatively with the urgent
global problem of climate change, the government of George Bush has opted
out – to the exasperation and consternation of scientists throughout the
world.
And yet, in June, 2001, Bush declared “My administration is committed to a
leadership role in the issue of climate change.”
In light of the events and pronouncements that were to follow, this was a
bald-face lie.
LIE #2: The “Clear Skies Initiative” Will Reduce Air Pollution.
Bush’s “Clear Skies Initiative” display’s the Administration’s flair for
doublespeak. (Cf. “Healthy Forests,” below). And how will this “initiative”
improve our air quality? Through the kindness of industrial polluters –
i.e., through “voluntary compliance,” the same sort of “honor system” that
gave Texas the worst air quality in the nation.
In fact, “Clear Skies” is a transparent hoax. When the Bush administration
took office, the so-called “New Source Review” (NSR) was in place, requiring
that plants that install new equipment or significantly increase their
emissions must, install modern pollution control devices. Bush’s
“improvements” significantly weaken NSRs, allowing old “grandfathered”
plants to continue to pollute, unabated. Of this decision, John Walke of the
Natural Resources Defense Council said, “the Bush administration decided to
allow corporate polluters to spew even more toxic chemicals into our air,
regardless of the fact that ti will harm millions of Americans... Under this
administration, the cop is not only off the beat, the EPA is proposing to
legalize harmful pollution that today is illegal.” (NRDC, November 22,
2002).
In a September 15 visit to the Detroit Edison power plant in Monroe,
Michigan, Bush praised the operators of the facility as “good stewards of
the quality of the air.” In fact, the plant is the eighth largest emitter of
sulfur dioxide in the United States (over 100,000 tons). With the relaxation
of the “new source reviews,” the Monroe plant will be permitted to continue
to dump out its nasties into the common air, in increasing amounts, far into
the future. (White House, September 15, 2003).
The man has no shame.
Lie #3: The Air in Downtown Manhattan, Immediately after 9/11, was
Safe.
Soon after the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, the EPA professionals
dutifully prepared a report warning the New Yorkers of the health dangers
posed by the dust and airborne particles generated by the collapse of the
buildings.
A not-so-funny thing happened to the report on its way to New York: it was
intercepted by Bush’s White House and “sanitized,” as cautionary statements
fell out and were replaced by unfounded reassurances. Consequently, as the
EPA Inspector General belatedly revealed to the consternation of the
Busheviks, the New Yorkers were not fairly warned of the hazards they faced.
For example, a week after the attacks, EPA Administrator, Christy Whitman,
announced that the air in lower Manhattan was “safe” to breathe. In fact,
there was no scientific basis for this reassurance since, at the time, the
labs were still at work testing for toxics and had not released its
findings.
In the original, pre-White-House draft, the EPA stated that “even at low
levels, EPA considers asbestos hazardous in this situation.”
The “improvement” by Bush’s Council on Environmental Quality (headed by an
ex-asbestos industry attorney) stated: “Short-term, low-level exposure [to
asbestos] of the type that might have been produced by the collapse of the
World Trade Center buildings is unlikely to cause significant health
effects.” (New York Daily News, August 26, 2003)
As a result of these false reassurances, the Wall Street securities industry
was up and running again at the earliest opportunity.
First things first.
Lie #4: “Significant Progress in Protecting Water Resources.”
Shortly before she left the EPA, Christy Whitman issued a report that
stated: “pristine waterways [and] safe drinking waters are treasured
resources... The nation has made significant progress in protecting these
resources in the last 30 years.” (Davidson)
This is an example of what I call a “grey lie:” a literal truth intended to
convey a falsehood. (Example: “I did not have sex with that woman.” Clinton
meant intercourse, and thus was plausibly telling the truth. But that’s not
at all he wanted us to believe by the remark).
Whitman’s report was quite true: “...in the last 30 years.” And that is a
great tribute to Bush’s predecessors. She did not elaborate on what has
happened to the nation’s water supply and wetlands in the last two years, or
what we are to expect in the future. In fact, the Bush administration is
proposing to remove 20% of the nation’s wetlands from federal protection.
And the aforementioned easing of air pollution standards, with the resulting
increase in sulfur dioxide emissions, can only reverse the recent reductions
in acid deposition in the northeastern states and the eastern Canadian
provinces.
Lie: #5: Oil Development Will Not Harm the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge.
In the Spring of 2002, the US Geological Survey submitted the results of a
twelve year study which concluded that oil exploration in ANWR would
adversely affect the habitat of the wildlife of the region. True to the
Bushistic spirit of "don't come to me unless you have the ‘facts' I want,"
Interior Secretary Gail Norton ordered a reassessment and, sure enough, in
just a week got the desired result: arctic wildlife just will love oil rigs.
(Seattle Post Intelligencer, March 30, 2002) [“Lies” (e)]
Lie #6: Bush will protect our forests with his “Healthy Forests”
Initiative.”
When given the chance this year to match words with deeds, Bush failed
miserably and spectacularly.
In April 16, 2003, Gov. Gray Davis of California sent a letter to George
Bush requesting $430 million to remove dead and diseased trees from 415,000
acres of southern California forests. Forestry experts and the California
congressional delegation, recognizing a potential catastrophe, begged prompt
action from the White House. On October 24, they received their reply: the
request was denied. (San Francisco Chronicle, October 30, 2003)
The very next day, the “Old Fire” north of San Bernardino broke out – then a
dozen more, claiming twenty lives, 3,500 homes, 750,000 acres, and costing
more than $2 billion dollars.
As the Southern California forests burned, some Bush defenders were heard to
say “we told you so. Those fires only serve to validate the need to adopt
the President’s ‘safe forest’ policy.”
However, professional foresters insist that “Healthy Forests” is little more
than an invitation to the logging industry to plunder the national forests.
Paraphrasing the infamous remark by an officer in Viet-Nam, “we must destroy
the forest in order to save it.”
As renowned biologist Edward O. Wilson observes:
The best way to avoid these catastrophic fires is by trimming
undergrowth and clearing debris, combined with natural burns of the kind
that have sustained healthy forests in past millennia. Those procedures,
guided by science and surgically precise forestry, can return forests to
near their equilibrium condition, in which only minimal further
intervention would be needed.
On the other hand, the worst way to create healthy forests is to thin
trees via increased logging, as proposed by the Bush administration.
(Newsday, Aug. 29, 2003)
Lie: #7: Environmental Regulations Damage the Economy and Cost Jobs.
We’ve all heard it, time and again: “Environmental quality is a luxury that
the nation’s economy can ill-afford. The costs of pollution control, toxic
cleanups and the preservation of wild areas are more than the public can or
should bear.”
However, Bush’s own Office of Management and Budget came to a radically
different conclusion. As the Washington Post’s Eric Pianin reports, the OMB
concluded “that the health and social benefits of enforcing tough new
clean-air regulations during the past decade were five to seven times
greater in economic terms than were the costs of complying with the rules.”
(September 27, 2003).
Will these compelling facts overturn cherished Bushista/corporate dogma?
Previous outcomes of the encounter of Bushistic doctrine with hard facts
offer little cause for hope.
Etcetera, ad nauseum.
We could go on and on with Bush’s lies and deceptions regarding the
environment, but we have come to the end of our allowable space. Let the
following summaries suffice:
-
Bush’s plan to protect endangered species? Lift international band
against killing, capturing and importing endangered animals. Allegedly,
the fees collected by the host countries for these activities can then be
used to protect the remaining rare animals. How do we know that the
impoverished governments will do their part? We trust them. Yea, sure!
-
In the meantime, the Bush administration has not added a single
species to the list of endangered species.
-
Bush has opened up millions of acres of previously protected
wilderness areas to mining, logging, and oil and gas development.
Small wonder that the League of Conservation Voters gave Bush an “F” on
their presidential environmental report card. LCV President Deb Callahan
sums it up: “Bush is well on his way to compiling the worst environmental
record of any president in the history of our nation.”
But Bush tells us: “[our] way of life depends, and always will depend, on
the wise protection of the natural environment. It's been a part of your
past; it's going to be an important part of the future.” (White House,
August 22, 2003)
Does he really believe it? Do his policies confirm this pious pronouncement?
We report, you decide.
REFERENCES
Cocco, Marie: “White House Deceit Covered Up 9/11 Truths,”
Newsday,
August 28, 2003
Davidson, Osha Gray: “Dirty Secrets,” Mother Jones, September/October
2003 Issue
Gonzales, Juan:
"It's
public be damned at the EPA," New York Daily News, August
26, 2003
Harris, Paul: “Bush Covers Up Climate Research,” The Observer (UK),
September 21, 2003
Helvarg, David: “Unwise Use: Gale Norton’s New Environmentalism,”
The
Progressive, June, 2003
League of Conservation Voters,
“Bush Receives ‘F’
for Environmental Issues on LCF 2003" Presidential Report
Card, Press Release, June 24, 2003.
Lee, Christopher:
"Effort to ease air rules decried,”
Washington Post, October
19, 2004.
National Academy of Sciences: “Leading Climate Scientists Advise White House
on Global Warming,” Press Release, June 6, 2001.
Natural Resources Defense Council,
“Bush Weakening
of Clean Air Act Threatens Public Health, Says NRDC," Press
Release, November 22, 2002
Perks, Robert:
“How Bush
Spent his Summer Vacation – Undermining Environmental Protections,”
Natural Resources Defense Council, September 6, 2003 (Truthout,
September 7, 2003).
Pianin, Eric: Study Finds Net Gain From Pollution Rules,"
Washington
Post, September 27, 2003]
Salladay , Robert and Zachary Coile:
"Bush ignored pleas for funds that could have prevented California fires,"
San Francisco Chronicle, October 31, 2003
Seattle Post-Intelligencer, "US Rejects Study by its Own Arctic Scientists,
" Seattle Post-Intelligencer, March 20, 2002
Trenberth, Kevin E.: (National Center of Atmospheric Research),
"The IPCC Assessment of
Global Warming 2001," Failsafe, Spring, 2001
U.S. Geological Survey Biological Science Report:
Arctic
Refuge Coastal Plain Terrestrial Wildlife Research Summaries.
White House Press Release:
“President's Remarks on Salmon Restoration,” August 22, 2003
White House Press Release:
“President Visits Detroit Edison Monroe Power Plant in Monroe, Michigan ,”
September 15, 2003.
Williams, Ted:
"Down Upon the Suwannee River,"
Mother Jones, September,
October 2003
Wilson, Edward O.: "Bush's Forest Plan Worse than Fire,
Long Island (NY)
Newsday, August 29, 2003].
