B
bach2yoga
Guest
This is NOT meant to stir debate, just for interest, please...I felt it pertinent because of the importance of the Pine Barrens as our country's first national reserve.
KERRY, BUSH ARE POLES APART ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Date: 22 Jun 2004
From: "Peter Montague" {Peter@rachel.org}
THEIR POSITIONS WILL BE AN ISSUE IN SWING STATES
By Erin Kelly, Salem (OR) Statesman Journal, June 22, 2004
Washington - President Bush and Democratic Sen. John Kerry disagree
about nearly every major environmental issue. And their clash
regarding topics from clean air to wilderness protection could help
determine who wins battleground states in the race for the White
House.
"This is the Grand Canyon of issue differences," said Bill Lunch, a
political scientist at Oregon State University. "Bush and Kerry are
more polarized on the environment than on just about any other topic."
Among their splits:
Bush called on Congress to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
to oil drilling. Kerry led the successful Senate fight to stop it.
Kerry voted to prohibit coal-mining companies from dumping waste in
rivers, lakes and streams. Bush lifted a ban on the practice.
Bush has rejected an international treaty to reduce global warming
that Kerry helped negotiate.
Although no one thinks that the environment will be the top issue in
this year's presidential race, it could influence the outcome in such
swing states as Oregon, Florida, Wisconsin and New Mexico. The League
of Conservation Voters - the political arm of the nation's major
environmental groups - plans to spend about $6 million in those states
to try to persuade voters to choose Kerry instead of Bush.
A new poll of 1,000 Americans by Yale University showed that 84
percent of those questioned said that the environment will be a factor
in their vote in November. About 35 percent said the environment will
be a "major factor."
"In an election that is tight, in a country where voters are so
evenly divided about who should be president, the mobilization of any
distinct group of people can make a big difference," said Mark
Longabaugh, the League of Conservation Voters' senior vice president
for political affairs. "There are 10 million members of environmental
groups across the country and millions more that consider themselves
environmentalists. We can help deliver votes where it counts."
The league, the Sierra Club and the Democratic Party hammer Bush for
"environmental rollbacks," including easing clean-air regulations to
allow aging, coal-fired power plants to expand without having to
install the latest pollution-control equipment. They also criticize
him for making taxpayers pick up the tab for cleaning up toxic-waste
sites by opposing efforts to reinstate a tax on oil and chemical
companies.
"They have demonstrated a clear bias toward corporate interests and
polluters at the expense of public health and safety," Longabaugh
said.
The Bush campaign counters with a list of the president's
environmental accomplishments, including his "Clear Skies Initiative"
to gradually reduce power-plant pollution and his new regulations to
slash toxic emissions from diesel-powered trucks, buses and farm
equipment.
"The president favors common-sense approaches to improving the
environment while protecting the quality of American life," a
statement on his campaign Web site reads.
In contrast, conservatives charge, Kerry supports costly
environmental regulations that could shut down power plants and cost
jobs. Kerry's support for reductions in the carbon dioxide emissions
that cause global warming is especially dangerous, said Marlo Lewis, a
senior fellow for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market
think tank that opposes most federal environmental regulation.
Regulating carbon dioxide would be disastrous for the U.S. economy,
Lewis said. "All our major fuels - oil, coal or natural gas - are
carbon-based," he said. "So once you start regulating energy
production based on carbon, there's no logical stopping point short of
total suppression of these fuels."
Kerry's supporters say that he has no intention of shutting down the
nation's power plants, but the debate underscores just how heated the
rhetoric can get on both sides.
Bush and Kerry reflect the split that has grown between the
Democratic and Republican parties about the environment. The rift is a
departure from the 1970s, when the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act
and the Endangered Species Act were passed by Congress with bipartisan
support and Republican President Richard Nixon created the
Environmental Protection Agency.
* * *
Copyright 2004 Statesman Journal, Salem, Oregon
KERRY, BUSH ARE POLES APART ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Date: 22 Jun 2004
From: "Peter Montague" {Peter@rachel.org}
THEIR POSITIONS WILL BE AN ISSUE IN SWING STATES
By Erin Kelly, Salem (OR) Statesman Journal, June 22, 2004
Washington - President Bush and Democratic Sen. John Kerry disagree
about nearly every major environmental issue. And their clash
regarding topics from clean air to wilderness protection could help
determine who wins battleground states in the race for the White
House.
"This is the Grand Canyon of issue differences," said Bill Lunch, a
political scientist at Oregon State University. "Bush and Kerry are
more polarized on the environment than on just about any other topic."
Among their splits:
Bush called on Congress to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
to oil drilling. Kerry led the successful Senate fight to stop it.
Kerry voted to prohibit coal-mining companies from dumping waste in
rivers, lakes and streams. Bush lifted a ban on the practice.
Bush has rejected an international treaty to reduce global warming
that Kerry helped negotiate.
Although no one thinks that the environment will be the top issue in
this year's presidential race, it could influence the outcome in such
swing states as Oregon, Florida, Wisconsin and New Mexico. The League
of Conservation Voters - the political arm of the nation's major
environmental groups - plans to spend about $6 million in those states
to try to persuade voters to choose Kerry instead of Bush.
A new poll of 1,000 Americans by Yale University showed that 84
percent of those questioned said that the environment will be a factor
in their vote in November. About 35 percent said the environment will
be a "major factor."
"In an election that is tight, in a country where voters are so
evenly divided about who should be president, the mobilization of any
distinct group of people can make a big difference," said Mark
Longabaugh, the League of Conservation Voters' senior vice president
for political affairs. "There are 10 million members of environmental
groups across the country and millions more that consider themselves
environmentalists. We can help deliver votes where it counts."
The league, the Sierra Club and the Democratic Party hammer Bush for
"environmental rollbacks," including easing clean-air regulations to
allow aging, coal-fired power plants to expand without having to
install the latest pollution-control equipment. They also criticize
him for making taxpayers pick up the tab for cleaning up toxic-waste
sites by opposing efforts to reinstate a tax on oil and chemical
companies.
"They have demonstrated a clear bias toward corporate interests and
polluters at the expense of public health and safety," Longabaugh
said.
The Bush campaign counters with a list of the president's
environmental accomplishments, including his "Clear Skies Initiative"
to gradually reduce power-plant pollution and his new regulations to
slash toxic emissions from diesel-powered trucks, buses and farm
equipment.
"The president favors common-sense approaches to improving the
environment while protecting the quality of American life," a
statement on his campaign Web site reads.
In contrast, conservatives charge, Kerry supports costly
environmental regulations that could shut down power plants and cost
jobs. Kerry's support for reductions in the carbon dioxide emissions
that cause global warming is especially dangerous, said Marlo Lewis, a
senior fellow for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market
think tank that opposes most federal environmental regulation.
Regulating carbon dioxide would be disastrous for the U.S. economy,
Lewis said. "All our major fuels - oil, coal or natural gas - are
carbon-based," he said. "So once you start regulating energy
production based on carbon, there's no logical stopping point short of
total suppression of these fuels."
Kerry's supporters say that he has no intention of shutting down the
nation's power plants, but the debate underscores just how heated the
rhetoric can get on both sides.
Bush and Kerry reflect the split that has grown between the
Democratic and Republican parties about the environment. The rift is a
departure from the 1970s, when the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act
and the Endangered Species Act were passed by Congress with bipartisan
support and Republican President Richard Nixon created the
Environmental Protection Agency.
* * *
Copyright 2004 Statesman Journal, Salem, Oregon