|
George W. Bush on Environment
President of the United States, Former Republican Governor (TX)
|
Proposed different measures to improve the environment
Q: What specifically has your administration done to improve the condition of our nation's air and water supply? A: Off-road diesel engines, we a reached an agreement to reduce pollution from off-road diesel engines by 90%. I've got a plan to increase
the wetlands by 3 million. We've got an aggressive brownfield program to refurbish inner-city sore spots to useful pieces of property. I proposed to the Congress a Clear Skies Initiative to reduce sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury by 70%.
I fought for a strong title in the farm bill for the conservation reserve program to set aside millions of acres of land for - to help improve wildlife and the habitat. We proposed and passed a healthy forest bill to protect old stands of trees and at
the same time, make sure our forests aren't vulnerable to the forest fires that have destroyed acres after acres in the West. I proposed a hydrogen-generated automobile. We're spending a billion dollars to come up with the technologies to do that.
Source: Second Bush-Kerry Debate, in St. Louis MO
Oct 8, 2004
Clear Skies Initiative improves air quality now
The Clear Skies Initiative would bring cleaner air to Americans faster, more reliably, and more cost-effectively than under current law. It would save Americans as much as $1 billion annually in compliance costs, while improving air quality and
protecting the reliability and affordability of electricity for consumers. Clear Skies would cut pollution further, faster, cheaper - and with more certainty - eliminating the need for expensive and uncertain litigation as a means of achieving clean air.
Source: Campaign website, www.georgewbush.com
Aug 30, 2003
Restrict wetland development, but not arsenic or CO2
Bush faces a choice of either embracing Clinton’s pro-green agenda [of several executive orders Clinton signed in his final weeks in office] or being labeled anti-environment by detractors and the press. Based on the coverage of the past few weeks, you’d
have to say the Clinton strategy worked. But now, Bush has clearly stopped playing along. The EPA did accept a Clinton rule restricting development in wetlands
and said that it would keep new energy-efficiency requirements for washing machines and water heaters. But last month, Bush blocked implementation of a tighter limit on the amount of arsenic in water,
suspended new cleanup requirements for mining companies, abandoned US participation in the Kyoto global warming treaty and renounced a campaign promise to restrict carbon dioxide emissions.
Source: Howard Kurtz, Washington Post
Apr 18, 2001
More lead emission reporting requirements
The Bush administration announced yesterday it will require thousands more manufacturers to disclose their releases of toxic lead into the environment, upholding a stricter lead-reporting regulation issued in the waning days of the Clinton presidency,
despite the vehement objections of business groups. The decision requires manufacturing and processing plants to report the emission of lead or lead compounds if they total 100 pounds a year, a much tougher standard than the current 10,000 pounds. The
new standard will expand the reporting requirement to an estimated 3,600 more businesses. In announcing his decision on lead, Bush said he “will continue to support and promote efforts based on sound science to clean our air, water & land.. Lead is a
persistent and highly toxic substance that can cause a range of environmental and health problems. Lead has an especially harmful impact on the health of children and infants. And it is found too often in some of America’s older, poorer communities.”
Source: Mike Allen, Washington Post, p. A1
Apr 18, 2001
Weaken Clean Air; no comment on Clean Water
| | Bush | Gore |
|---|
| Forests | Opposes ban on logging in roadless areas of national forests; supports Tropical Forest Conservation Act | Supports protection of 40 million acres of roadless
national forests from logging |
|---|
| Air Pollution | Lobbied to weaken Clean Air Act enforcement | New clean air standards approved under Clinton/Gore |
|---|
| Water Pollution | Bush’s position papers contain no
mention of clean water | Backs federal regulations on factory-farm runoff; worked to strengthen Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act |
|---|
| Brownfield Cleanup | Supports “more flexibility” in cleanup regulations; supports
liability protection for re-developers | Supports existing cleanup regulations; under Clinton/Gore, three times as many toxic waste sites cleaned up as in previous 12 years |
|---|
Source: Boston Globe, p. A28
Nov 3, 2000
Incentives for private land stewardship & conservation
To provide resources for conservation and encourage more Americans to take an active role in protecting natural resources and wildlife, Governor Bush proposed:- Fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund and provide 50% for state and local
conservation efforts.
- Provide matching grants for states to establish a Landowner Incentive Program to help private landowners protect rare species while engaging in traditional land management practices, and establish a Private Stewardship Grant
Program to provide funding for private conservation initiatives.
- Establish the President’s Awards for Private Stewardship to recognize and honor the best examples of private conservation.
- Create a tax incentive to provide capital gains tax relief
for private landowners who voluntarily sell their land for conservation purposes.
- Eliminate the estate tax. This will make it easier for private landowners to pass their land intact to the next generation.
Source: P.R. for Sand Harbor speech, part of “Renewing America”
Jun 1, 2000
Conservation partnerships to protect lands & watersheds
Since the days of Teddy Roosevelt, there has been a consensus that Americans have a common interest in protecting our natural lands & watersheds. It is our duty to use the lands well, and sometimes not to use them at all. It is our responsibility as
citizens, but more than that it is our calling as stewards of the earth.The federal government has a crucial role to play in conservation-particularly in managing our national forests, our park system, wilderness areas, and national wildlife refuges.
But problems arise when leaders reject partnership, and rely solely on the power of Washington-on regulations, penalties, and dictation from afar.
It’s time to build conservation partnerships between the federal government and state governments, local
communities and private landowners. In all these efforts, we see the future of conservation. What is the federal role? To provide the scientific and financial resources to help states, local communities and private landowners preserve land and wildlife.
Source: Sand Harbor speech, part of “Renewing America’s Purpose”
Jun 1, 2000
$60M for private stewardship; tax break on conservation land
I will seek to fully fund the Land & Water Conservation Fund-to its authorized level of $900 million. Half of those funds [should] be devoted to state & local conservation. I will ask that $50 million be used to help states set up Landowner Incentive
Programs, similar to ours in Texas. And $10 million for a Private Stewardship Program-making grants available to individuals and groups engaged in private conservation. I will establish the President’s Awards for Private Stewardship, to recognize
outstanding examples of private stewardship, and to publicize innovative techniques in natural resource management. I will seek an additional tax incentive to encourage private conservation. Incentives already exist in the tax code, but only if the land
is given away. Many private landowners want their property to be conserved, but are in no position to give it away. Under my proposal, the seller would receive a 50% break on his or her capital gain if the land is sold for conservation purposes.
Source: Sand Harbor speech, part of “Renewing America’s Purpose”
Jun 1, 2000
Superfund failing: too costly; too litigious; too complex
The federal Superfund statute was passed by Congress in 1980 to ensure that the worst contaminated sites in the country would be promptly cleaned up. However, Superfund has failed in its mission:- It has proven both expensive and inefficient. Of
the 1,231 Superfund sites, only 595 have been cleaned up as of June 30, 1999. Moreover, while Superfund was expected to cost $5 billion and complete all cleanups in less than five years, actual Superfund spending has exceeded $30 billion and the current
average length of cleanups is eight years.
- Superfund has promoted costly litigation: 36% of the $11 billion spent by the private sector on Superfund in the first ten years of the program went not to clean up contaminated sites, but to pay consultants’
and lawyers’ fees and other litigation costs
- Superfund has actually had a chilling effect on brownfield cleanup, because a brownfield can be subjected at any time to Superfund and its complex regulations and liability scheme.
Source: Press Release, part of “Renewing America’s Purpose”
Apr 3, 2000
Keep drilling; keep dams; keep private property
- Supports moratorium against offshore drilling in California and Florida
- Opposes breaching dams in Pacific Northwest
- Supports conservation of land, wetlands and habitat, particularly by private landowners
- Supports protection of private property rights
Source: GeorgeWBush.com: ‘Issues: Policy Points Overview’
Apr 2, 2000
George W. Bush on Brownfields + Parks
Proposes $211M to cleaning up brownfields
President Bush is committed to accelerating the cleanup and redevelopment of contaminated, underutilized industrial sites. The revitalization of brownfields serves to improve the environment, protect public health, create jobs, & revitalize communities.
The President's FY04 budget proposal provides $211 million - almost 130 percent more than when President Bush took office - for EPA's brownfields cleanup program.
Source: Campaign website, www.georgewbush.com
Aug 30, 2003
$450M annually for wildlife and open spaces
The Bush plan.- Accelerate the cleanup of industrial sites to fully protect human health & the environment, working in partnership with citizens, businesses & government.
- These sites can be used for parks, recreation or other public purposes.
- Commit $5 billion to restore the health of all our National Parks within the next five years.
Source: Blueprint for the Middle Class
Sep 17, 2000
$4.9B to repair “crumbling” national parks
Bush said too many federal dollars were spent acquiring land and not maintaining existing properties. “Under this administration, the parks are in worse shape than ever before. For eight years, this administration has talked of environmentalism while our
national parks are crumbling.” He pledged to push Congress to spend about $4.9 billion more to pay for a backlog of repairs on deteriorating highways and tourist attractions and to purify polluted streams in national parks.
Source: AP Story, NY Times
Sep 13, 2000
Reinvest in Conservation Fund; repair parks & refuges
- Reinvest in America’s natural resources by fully funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and guarantee a 50% share of the LWCF for state and local conservation
- Supports alleviating the substantial repair and
improvement backlog facing our national parks, wildlife refuges and other public lands
Source: GeorgeWBush.com: ‘Issues: Policy Points Overview’
Apr 2, 2000
George W. Bush on Federal Role
Good stewardship is personal responsibility and public value
President Bush believes that good stewardship of the environment is not just a personal responsibility, it is a public value. Americans are united in the belief that it is important to preserve our natural heritage and safeguard the land around us.
The President believes that the federal government has an important role to play in protecting our environment. The President favors common-sense approaches to improving the environment while protecting the quality of American life.
Source: Campaign website, www.georgewbush.com
Aug 30, 2003
Natural resources & environment funding in FY04 highest ever
At $44.9 billion, the President's FY04 environment and natural resources budget request is the highest ever.
The Budget funds the nation's priorities of protecting our drinking water, reducing pollution, cleaning up industrial waste sites, protecting our national parks and refuges, and helping farmers conserve on private lands as well.
Source: Campaign website, www.georgewbush.com
Aug 30, 2003
Federal standards+local collaboration; no command & control
GORE [to Bush]: He’s right that I’m not in favor of energy taxes. I am in favor of tax cuts to encourage and give incentives for the quicker development of these new kinds of technologies and let me say again, Detroit is raring to go on that. We differ
on whether or not pollution controls ought to be voluntary. I don’t think you can get results that way. BUSH: I don’t believe in command and control out of Washington, D.C. I believe Washington ought to set standards, but we ought to be collaborative
at the local levels.
Q: Would the federal government still have some new regulations to pass?
BUSH: Sure, absolutely, so long as they’re based upon science and they’re reasonable, so long as people have input.
GORE: I’m not for command and
control techniques either. I’m for working with the groups, not just with industry but also with the citizens groups and local communities to control sprawl in ways that the local communities themselves come up with.
Source: (X-ref Gore) Presidential Debate at Wake Forest University
Oct 11, 2000
Replace mandate/regulate/litigate with decentralized efforts
Bush’s environmental record in Texas is notably poor, and he has never suggested he cares. On his watch, the air in Houston has become so foul that the city has recently displaced Los Angeles as the city with the worst smog in America.
Bush says he wants to:- Tackle the brownfield problem by replacing the “old system of mandate/regulate/litigate” with decentralized state-led efforts
- Conserve wilderness areas by encouraging states and even private citizens to take up
wildlife management, rather than leaving everything to the federal government
- Tackle global warming, which he acknowledges may be a real threat. However, he pours scorn on the Kyoto Treaty on climate change (which Gore is proud of) and says he favors
market-friendly alternatives instead.
- Keep energy prices low, in part by encouraging further exploration on federal lands. He blamed the summer gasoline crisis on new laws mandating cleaner gas; precisely the sort of initiative Gore would love.
Source: The Economist, “Issues 2000” special
Sep 30, 2000
Can’t sue our way to clean air & water--work with industry
Bush yesterday announced his first environmental initiative: to quicken the cleanup and redevelopment of polluted industrial sites known as brownfields. Bush said that under his plan, state and local governments would work with private industry to
develop new environmental standards, rather than battling them in the courtroom. “The government cannot sue its way to clean air and water,” Bush said.
Source: Audrey Hudson, Washington Times, p. A4
Apr 4, 2000
Keep fed enviro role but give money & flexibility to states
Bush unveiled proposals yesterday prescribing flexible standards and technology as the best antidote for pollution and blight. “Prosperity will mean little if we leave to future generations a world of polluted air, toxic lakes and rivers, and
vanished forests,” Bush said.
He pledged, if elected, to eliminate red tape and give states the money and regulatory flexibility to clean up hundreds of similar sites on an accelerated schedule. “The solution is not to eliminate
the federal role in protecting the environment,“ he said, ”the solution is reform--reform that sets high standards.“
Bush argued that rigid, complex regulations can be obstacles to cleaner cities. ”[Texas] didn’t wait for Al Gore to wave
his magic wand to clean up our environment,“ he said. ”We cleaned it up ourself, and out state’s the better for it.“
Source: Washington Post, p. A6
Apr 4, 2000
Base enviro decisions on science & market-driven solutions
- Believes environmental standards must be based on the best science, market-driven technologies can provide solutions, and government should encourage innovation and going beyond compliance
- Recognizes that global warming
should be taken seriously but will require any decisions to be based on the best science; opposes Kyoto Protocol
Source: GeorgeWBush.com: ‘Issues: Policy Points Overview’
Apr 2, 2000