Since activists first established Earth Day on April 22, 1970 — an event American Heritage Magazine 23 years later called “one of the most remarkable happenings in the history of democracy” — a new environmental ethos has permeated politics.
The summer of that year, President Nixon addressed a letter to Congress citing unorganized, “piecemeal” government-related activities and the need to create a unified Environmental Protection Agency. The agency opened its doors that December.
Politicians facing election aren’t staying silent about environmental policies.
Democratic nominee-elect Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., blasted President Bush’s environmental record Tuesday.
According to Kerry’s critique, delivered at a Tampa, Fla. campaign event, the president’s proposals will contribute to upward of 100,000 premature deaths and millions of asthma attacks. He also said Bush’s policy of allowing dirtier plants to not upgrade to cleaner technology, is doing serious environmental and human damage.
Regardless of how accurate these claims are, politicians are talking about the environment in big ways. In the modern American political scene — which is one of heightened environmental consciousness — if politicians aren’t doing more to establish a balance of human interests and environmental quality, it’s much harder to ignore green issues.
The Bush administration has established some environmentally friendly policies. The Landowner Incentive Program, for example, offers grants to landowners who voluntarily protect the habitats of threatened and at-risk species that live on private property. In addition, the president’s fiscal year 2003 budget included the largest National Parks operations budget ever submitted — $665 million.
Still, Bush’s White House record, it seems, is far from unsoiled.
The administration’s environmental philosophy is results-oriented, according to the White House Web site (http://www.whitehouse.gov) — “making our air, water, and land clear.”
But a recent budget proposal slashes funding for the recovery of endangered species by almost $10 million.
For the third consecutive year Bush also has asked Congress to relax environmental laws for the military, and the Pentagon is seeking immunity from laws that regulate hazardous waste and air quality.
For all these efforts, the Bush administration seems to have a problem with scientific integrity.
The White House Web site insists “(t)he President believes that we need to employ the best science and data to inform our decision-making.” But Monday, the Union of Concerned Scientists released a rebuttal to a White House statement issued earlier this month.
The Bush administration statement was itself a response to an earlier UCS report, “Scientific Integrity in Policymaking,” which criticized the government for undermining scientific integrity. The report, signed by many prominent scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, alleged the White House has manipulated in areas including air pollution, forest management and endangered species.
This Earth Day, the Emerald Editorial Board urges the Bush administration to re-evaluate its environmental policies (and intellectual integrity) for the good of America’s next generation.