The first in the Editorial Board's continuing series on election issues will deal with the environment. This series is meant to engage voters on a variety of topics, as well as provide insight for the presidential election on Nov. 2.
In May 2004, a Yale survey found that 10 percent of voters consider environmental policy the most important issue of the election. But because environmental effects often take years or even decades to observe, it is more difficult to engage voters on the results of most policies.
President Bush has had four years to prove his previous campaign promise of compassionate conservatism, yet his environmental record has been riddled with criticism.
Within months of inauguration, the White House pulled the United States out of the Kyoto Protocol, a 1997 international agreement to limit gas emissions causing global climate change. Like many of his policies, the president favors deregulation and voluntary action for environmental cooperation.
The Bush administration introduced the "Clear Skies Initiative" in February 2002, which put limits on sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury emissions. However, the main pollutant accused of causing global warming, carbon dioxide, was not limited by the act. But the administration has made strides to curb diesel pollution: In February 2004, the administration slated $65 million to reduce diesel pollution from school buses.
The president has repeatedly tried to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in northeastern Alaska for oil drilling. Congress must act to authorize the drilling and has so far remained against the measure.
Sen. John Kerry has had 20 years in Congress to establish himself as one of the greenest senators in Washington, and the League of Conservation Voters gave him an average rating of 96 of 100 on their environmental scorecard from 1985 to 2002.
Kerry has not openly stated he would ratify the Kyoto Protocol if elected. Kerry did not support the "Clear Skies Initiative" when it was passed, claiming it would maintain "current levels of pollution over the next two decades." Later in 2003, Kerry co-sponsored a bill to limit carbon dioxide emissions to levels during the first Bush's term. The senator has also repeatedly blocked motions to open ANWR for drilling.
Many conservatives may look to Kerry's environmental record for evidence to peg him as the most liberal senator in Congress. However, Kerry's convictions for the environment have left him with no contradiction with which to label a "flip-flop."
Both candidates favor exploring more renewable energy policies and minimizing national dependence on foreign energy sources.
The biggest flaw within the current administration's policy is its willingness to put industrial interests before those of the people. Opening national parks for more logging or oil exploration, reducing regulations on pollution emissions and ignoring growing scientific evidence for global climate change in the name of pleasing big business does not constitute a public service.
Kerry fought for commercial whaling bans, sustainable fishing and competitive grants for university research on invasive marine species; in effect, his policies tend to keep the Earth first.
Although environmental issues rarely shape the final outcome of an election, the handful of invaluable undecided voters in swing states may look to environmental impact as an issue that gives them a clear line to draw between the candidates. For them, it's hard not to favor the Massachusetts senator.
Be the first to comment on this article!