North Carolina leaders trying to put a lid on the pollution produced by TVA that blows into our mountains got a rare opportunity last week - a meeting with President George Bush. Sen. President Pro Tem Marc Basnight gave the new president a letter signed by all 50 North Carolina senators that urged the federal government to make TVA meet emissions restrictions on their old coal-fired power plants.

The meeting, according to reports, left many optimistic. Bush reportedly said he was in need of an environmental issue. Perhaps he could wrap this issue around him like the acid rain envelops a Mt. Mitchell fir tree.

The truth, however, is that Bush’s environmental policies, statements, and spending has so far easily been the most disappointing aspect of his presidency.

I know I’m not the most objective person on this issue. I am proud to consider myself an environmentalist. I like to be called a tree hugger. Realizing my own inability to be ojective, I watched quietly as the president staked out positions contrary to those of most Americans - his continued pledge to drill in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge, reneging on a promise to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, refusing to cut arsenic levels in drinking water, easing cleanup requirement proposals for mining companies, and refusing to fight legal maneuvering that will probably overturn the creation of new roadless areas in national forests. All of this has occurred within the first four months of his presidency.

What I began listening for were critics from within his own camp. Surely this dismantling of environmental programs would upset those moderate Republicans who despised the Clintons and the Democrats but respect God’s Earth. With a razor-thin majority in the House and an evenly divided Senate (save for the tie-breaking power of Vice President Dick Cheney), Bush will need every vote if his policies are to get through Congress.

Sure enough, many Republicans are backing away from the president. That’s good news for those who think a balanced environmental approach is better than one that stands unequivocally behind the oil, energy, mining and timber interests.

The Fayetteville Observer-Times is a North Carolina newspaper that serves a readership closely tied to the largest military installation in the country at Ft. Bragg and Pope Air Force Base. I grew up in that town and held my first newspaper job at the paper while in high school. It is a relatively conservative paper, as one would expect, but will break out of that mold when the necessity arises. Its lead editorial on Saturday hammered Bush for his “assault on the environment,” using military terms to describe his policies.

The president, said the newspaper, was lining up squarely behind those who contributed to his campaign - energy, public utility, and the forest products in-dustries. The paper said the new president’s policies are worse even than those of James Watt, the infamous Interior Secretary of President Ronald Reagan.

“It’s clear now that Bush intends to wage war against environmental standards that are supported by most Americans. It’s unclear if he understands how heavily that battle will damage his power and his party,” the newspaper said.

The latest attacks on the environment from the president are contained in the budget he recently presented to Congress. It outlines his spending priorities and therefore his philosophies. Here are a few nuggets: $400 million slashed from the Interior Department budget, $500 million from the EPA, and the budget for renewable energy research halved. Perhaps worst of all is a budget maneuver that tries to strip the rights of citizens and groups to file suits against the federal government on behalf of endangered species and their habitats, a move that severely weakens the ability to get species listed. Public lands, pollution, clean sources of energy and endangered species will not be priorities, at least according to the new president’s first budget. One is left to wonder what his environmental priorities are.

In a New York Times article written earlier this month, a long list of moderate Republicans expressed bewilderment at Bush’s environmental priorities even before his budget was released.

GOP Rep. Marge Roukman of New Jersey fired off a letter to the president after he reversed his campaign promise on carbon dioxide emissions: “Mr. President, health and safety first! We urge you in the strongest possible terms to reconsider your decision.”

Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, GOP convention delegate Ted Roosevelt (great-grandson of President Teddy Roosevelt), GOP Rep. Sherwood Boehler of New York, and former EPA chief William Reilly (who held that job under Bush’s father) have criticized some of the president’s early decisions.

“One really has to hope - and I really do believe - it’s not the last word (on carbon dioxide),” Reilly told the N.Y. Times.

I know my conservative friends will argue that I am misunderstanding the new president’s philosophies. Perhaps they will also argue that an article in the New York Times, long a liberal bastion, might give an inaccurate portryal. But these Republicans who Bush needs in Congress knew what newspaper they were talking to. They are clearly bewildered at the president’s lack of sensitivity to legitimate environmental concerns.

Bush inspired confidence with his handling of the captured plane with China as he relied on the deep stock of Republican talent. I do see his strengths. But when it comes to the environment, many of Bush’s actions are simply too one sided and perfectly aligned with industries who can and have hurt the environment.

Maybe, though, clean air in the Southern Appalachian mountains will become this president’s environmental issue. Since the root of the problem - the TVA - is a federal agency, then the president could almost single-handedly solve our woes if he decided it was worthwhile. Let’s see what happens.
(Scott McLeod can be reached at info@smokymountainnews.com)

 

Back to Top
The Smoky Mountain News