Monday, March 26, 2001
Is Bush Using a Phony 'Energy Crisis' for Cover on the Environment?
Beyond Alaska and CO2, the administration continues to blame California for
its slide to the environmental right. Why they'll probably get away with it
BY FRANK PELLEGRINI
When George W. Bush first shattered the illusions — perhaps delusions is the
better word — of environmentalists everywhere last week by reversing his
stance on carbon dioxide emissions, he had a handy excuse: The economy —
specifically the energy crisis — made me do it.
"Including caps on carbon dioxide emissions as part of a multiple emissions
strategy would lead to an even more dramatic shift from coal to natural gas
for electric power generation and significantly higher electricity prices,"
Bush wrote in his March 13 letter to Chuck Hagel informing Congress of his
change in policy. A few days later, Christie Whitman (whose own wishful
thinking had probably gotten Bush into the mess in the first place) finally
climbed on board, telling the National Press Club the country was "in the
midst of a national energy crisis — this is a long way from being over."
And you aint' seen nothin' yet
Bush still got his three days of bashing in the press from editorial writers
and environmental groups for marching directly into the arms of Big Coal, but
the heat obviously wasn't enough to drive the White House back toward the
middle of the environmental road. Because this week it seemed determined to
stretch that economic cover just as far as it will go — and it ain't just
drilling in Alaska.
Tuesday, the administration announced it was withdrawing tough new limits
(set by an outgoing President Clinton) on the amount of arsenic allowable in
drinking water, pending further review. Wednesday, the administration said it
would seek to undo regulations forcing more hard-rock miners in the West to
post cleanup bonds. And Thursday, Vice President Dick Cheney told "Hardball"
that if it's emissions environmentalists are worried about, his energy-policy
task force may well recommend that more nuclear power be part of the
solution.
The solution: More is more
"We do not support the approach of the Kyoto treaty," Cheney said. "If you're
really serious about greenhouse gases, one of the solutions to that problem
is to go back, and let's take another another look at nuclear power, use that
to generate electricity without having any adverse consequences."
Except, of course, the radioactive waste.
For the Bush-Cheney crowd, weaned on Big Oil and elected with Enron dollars,
the worst "adverse consequences" are the economic kind, in which Big Business
suffers at the hands of tree-huggers. For Republicans, the energy crisis — a
term that Democrats have given up objecting to — demands more supply, more
fuel for the U.S. economic engine. More drilling, more production, more oil,
more coal. The only thing it demands less of is "onerous regulation" and
environmental extremism.
The public is, ah, well, hard to read
To the environmentalists, of course, it's Bush's energy Rasputins who are the
extremists — the sputtering economy and the California crisis are just the
excuses. After the CO2 turnabout, Rep. George Miller, a California Democrat
on the House Resources Committee, called Bush on the carpet.
"It is insulting to the American people that President Bush is using the
electricity crisis in California as an excuse to allow old, inefficient power
plants to continue polluting our air," Miller said in a statement. "It is a
strong indication that the Bush administration is kowtowing to the oil and
coal industry and is not listening to science or public opinion."
Maybe not science. But public opinion, when it comes to environmentalism, is
a notoriously lazy watchdog. Polls on the Alaska drilling issue were
inconclusive. (The modification of "oil drilling" with the words
"environmentally responsible" tended to take the teeth right out of the
opposition, even though the term is as murky as the air over Los Angeles.)
And the public is spoiled to boot
The problem is that while everybody likes the idea of a clean Earth,
Americans aren't much for self-sacrifice. We drive SUVs and eschew public
transportation, but can't bear high prices at the pump — and the "gas
consumption tax" is political poison, deadlier than any arsenic. We own
multiple TVs, surf the Internet, and run the air-conditioning while we're at
work so the house is cool when we get home, but even in California, the most
environmentally progressive state we've got, the mere mention of higher
electricity bills as a demand-reducing measure sends shivers down Gray
Davis's spine.
Democrats are trying — Tom Daschle, introducing a rival energy proposal,
accused Bush on Thursday of trying to "drill our way out of this problem...
we cannot use our coming energy challenges as justification for an all-out
assault on the environment." But they're likely to find what
environmentalists have always found: Americans love to dream about a cleaner
world, but when we find out what it'll cost, we'll usually take a good excuse
instead.
Bush evidently figures the energy crisis — or the economic slowdown, take
your pick — will do nicely. And it just may.
