That Bush has failed as “the environmental president.” This isn’t true, but the perception that it is true is entirely Bush’s fault.
In four years Bush passed a landmark Clean Air Act, which should nearly end smog in U.S. cities; restricted offshore oil exploration; accelerated the abolition of CFCs; increased enforcement of Superfund cleanups for toxic wastes; blocked imports of tuna caught in the nets that kill dolphins; signed the Rio global-warming treaty, and fielded many lower-profile environmental regulations, especially in water quality. This is more than Jimmy Carter accomplished in the four years of his presidency.
Recently, however, Bush has grown publicly grumpy about environment reform, attacking laws such as the Endangered Species Act. This rhetorical shift is the handiwork of OMB Director Richard Darman, who has invested considerable energy in convincing Bush that environmental regulation is a leading cause of the recession. Few economists believe this to be so. But in the great Washington blame-shifting game, Darman needed to fix responsibility for the recession onto something other than his own economic advice; he seized on the environment. The effect has been to make Bush appear antienvironment when actually the reverse is true.
That Clinton would sacrifice jobs for the environment. This is possible, but unlikely.
Bush’s recent claims that conservation costs jobs are difficult to support with economic data. Environmental protection was a growth industry during the late 1980s, booming at 15 percent per year, according to the Environmental Business Journal. As many as a million jobs have been created in this sector, though many are low-end employment, such as sorting work at recycling centers.
There are a few instances where environmental regulations cost high-paying jobs, most poignantly the dispute between Pacific loggers and the spotted owl. Bush may say that Clinton loves owls more than people; Clinton will respond that job losses in Pacific logging were caused by nonenvironmental factors such as timber exports to Japan. The truth lies in the middle. Owl protection is causing some jobs to be lost, but most unemployed loggers are victims of automation, a force aided by Reagan-Bush tax favors for capital investment.
Bush is undermining wetlands protection. This is true.
One of Bush’s 1988 campaign promises was “no net loss” of wetlands. In 1989, new EPA Administrator William Reilly proposed a set of wetlands regulations that honored this pledge. Dan Quayle’s Competitiveness Council blocked Reilly, attempting to substitute rules that could have reclassified much of the Everglades as dry land. Returning to the White House, James Baker was amazed to discover how assiduously Quayle’s staff had worked to bungle a campaign promise. Baker may void the Quayle proposal before the election. The damage to Bush’s image, however, is done.
That Clinton had a poor environmental record as governor. This is true.
Water pollution nationwide has shown a steady decline in recent years but has grown worse in Arkansas’s White River, largely from chicken-processing wastes. Clinton’s failing here is especially significant because the Clean Water Act is the most important federal environmental program administered by the states. Dukakis was vulnerable on the Boston dirty-water charge for the same reason, because it was Massachusetts, not Washington, that had the responsibility to crack down on harbor pollution.
That, Quayle’s Competitiveness Council has hurt implementation of the new Clean Air Act. This is only slightly true.
Quayle’s staff has tried to disrupt implementation of smog regulations, but has been defeated on matters of substance by Reilly. Democrats such as Rep. Henry Waxman of California have engaged in theatrical expressions of woe over Quayle’s influence in an attempt to diffuse Bush’s genuine accomplishment in the Clean Air Act.
That Al Gore is an “environmental extremist.” This appears to be true but is not.
Gore is given to preposterous environmental overstatement (inefficient automobiles pose “a mortal threat to the security of every nation that is more deadly than that of any military enemy”), which in the Senate he followed up with moderate action. Ronald Reagan used to overstate wildly the case against liberal programs, then propose cautious, incremental reforms. Gore’s behavior in the White House is likely to be the same.
No one knows, because he has made few comments on this issue, and has no record to assess. Possibly he will promise a “world-class environment,” leaving voters to ponder, Which world?
