Bill Bradley on Environment

Protecting environment is ultimate enlightened self-interest

Environmental ills at home-smog, deforestation, the loss of wetlands-as well as the degradation of vast areas of the developing world remind us that protecting the environment is the ultimate enlightened self-interest. A patient and persistent dialogue between thoughtful environmentalists and farsighted companies will allow us to reach a consensus on how to expand trade and protect the environment at the same time. Source: The Journey From Here, by Bill Bradley, p.138 Aug 15, 2000

2-year effort in 1990 changed CA water allocations

Bradley posted one of his few other major leadership triumphs in Congress in 1992.As chairman of a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee, Bradley took on California’s Republican governor, Pete Wilson, and the Bush administration in trying to reallocate the state’s scarce federal water supply for other uses. The water had long been controlled b powerful landowners, backed by corporate and political leaders. But Bradley wanted to make the water more accessible for cities, businesses, and environmental purposes. “The guy worked on it for two straight years, and in the end, he made it happen,” said an allied Congressman. Source: Boston Globe, p. A29 Jan 30, 2000

Local stewardship works for NH’s White Mountains

Q: Why should federal environmental policy preempt local processes if both include involvement of the community? A: I don’t think a president should preempt, in [New Hampshire’s] White Mountains, the local planning process. There have been recreation uses there for many years. There’s timber cutting there for many years. And I think mixed use is the proper way to proceed. Local decision-making is important and mixed use is the way it should be [here, although] not in all national forests. Source: Democratic Debate in Durham, NH Jan 5, 2000

Supports more pollution cleanup & pollution prevention

Q: What will a Bradley administration do to foster environmental quality?

clean up that which has already been polluted - Clean Water Act; Clean Air Act; Solid Waste Disposal Act; the Superfund Cleanup Act;
to protect those areas which have not been polluted from becoming polluted.

The League of Conservation voters put me at something like 85 over a lifetime, which indicates they saw somebody doing the work necessary to improve the environment. Source: Democrat Debate at Dartmouth College Oct 28, 1999

Let people experience something bigger than themselves

Why is it so important that we preserve our natural world? You protect the natural world from pollution or you clean up that which has been polluted so that individuals may encounter something that is bigger than they are and lasts longer than they do. Every time I have some moment on a seashore or in the mountains or sometimes in a quiet forest, I think that this is why the environment has to be preserved, so that people can have this experience. Source: Democrat Debate at Dartmouth College Oct 28, 1999

Improve air quality by getting old clunkers off the road

“We need new strategies to get car owners to get old clunkers off the road since they contribute disproportionately to pollution and to encourage the production and use of cleaner cars. We need to support efforts that improve mobility for everyone but do so in less environmentally damaging ways. Bradley supports additional efforts to ensure that all Americans breathe healthful air. including tighter pollution standards for cars and SUVs.” Source: Response to Sustainable Energy Coalition survey Oct 4, 1999

Fight pollution to preserve nature for our children

Preserving the natural environment for our children to experience is one of the obligations we have to future generations. We [should] make sure that the areas in America that are not polluted remain unpolluted-that they remain pristine, able for people to experience and understand the idea that nature conveys, which is that there is something bigger than we are and lasts longer than we live. [We should] clean up areas that have already been polluted. Source: www.billbradley.com/ “On the Environment” 5/19/99 May 19, 1999

Controlling Mississippi River is arrogance, not technology

[Beginning in the 1930s, we built] 26 locks and dams on the upper Mississippi River and miles of federal levees along its entire length. These attempts to direct or control the Mississippi are testimony not so much to our technological acumen as to our arrogance. To subsidize river traffic in this way is to obligate taxpayers at great expense to wage battle against the power of the Mississippi year after year. It is a battle that we will ultimately lose. Source: Time Present, Time Past, p. 15-16 Jan 8, 1997

Voted YES on requiring EPA risk assessments.

Require risk assessments of new EPA regulations.
Status: Amdt Agreed to Y)90; N)8; NV)2 Reference: Safe Drinking Water Act Amdt.s of '94; Bill S. 2019 ; vote number 1994-117 on May 18, 1994

Click here for definitions & background information on Environment. Click here for policy papers on Environment. Click here for SenateMatch answers by Bill Bradley. Agree? Disagree? Voice your opinions on Environment in The Forum.
*Other candidates on Environment:*		*Bill Bradley on other issues:*
*NJ Gubernatorial:* Jim McGreevey Richard Codey Thomas Kean *NJ Senatorial:* Bob Torricelli Douglas Forrester Frank Lautenberg Jon Corzine *Presidential:* George W. Bush (Republican for President) V.P.Dick Cheney (Republican for V.P.) Sen.John Kerry (Democratic nominee for Pres.) Sen.John Edwards (Democratic nominee for V.P.) Ralph Nader (Reform nominee for Pres.) Peter Camejo (Reform nominee for V.P.) David Cobb (Green nominee for Pres.) Michael Badnarik (Libertarian nominee for Pres.) Michael Peroutka (Constitution nominee for Pres.)	*2004 Senate Races:* (AK)Knowles v.Murkowski v.Sykes (AL)Shelby v.Sowell (AR)Holt v.Lincoln (AZ)McCain v.Starky (CA)Boxer v.Jones v.Gray (CO)Coors v.Salazar v.Randall v.Acosta (CT)Dodd v.Orchulli (FL)Castor v.Martinez (GA)Isakson v.Majette v.Buckley (IA)Grassley v.Small v.Northrop (IL)Obama v.Keyes (IN)Bayh v.Scott (KY)Bunning v.Mongiardo (LA)John v.Vitter (MD)Mikulski v.Pipkin (MO)Bond v.Farmer (NC)Bowles v.Burr (ND)Dorgan v.Liffrig (NH)Granny D v.Gregg (NV)Reid v.Ziser (NY)Schumer v.Mills v.McReynolds (OH)Fingerhut v.Voinovich (OK)Carson v.Coburn (OR)Wyden v.King (PA)Hoeffel v.Specter (SC)DeMint v.Tenenbaum (SD)Daschle v.Thune (UT)Bennett v.Van Dam (VT)Leahy v.McMullen (WA)Murray v.Nethercutt (WI)Feingold v.Michels	Abortion Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Jobs Principles Social Security Tax Reform Technology War/Peace Welfare Other Senators House of Representatives SenateMatch (matching quiz) HouseMatch Senate Votes (analysis) House Votes