Main Menu

• Home Page

• Services

• News

• Downloads

• Regulatory
  Summaries

• Vendor
  List

• Links

• Previous Programs

• Publications

• Staff

• Contact Us

Iowa News

Presidential Candidates Play Environmental Politics
08/23/2000

Environmental issues resonated through the presidential campaigns of both Democrat Al Gore and Republican George W. Bush this weekend. Both of the major party candidates claimed environmental victories in their pasts - claims that were met with some skepticism by environmental groups.

During a four day, 400 mile boat tour of the Mississippi River on the Mark Twain Riverboat, Gore and his wife Tipper rallied supporters in towns and at boat locks. During a stop in Dubuque, Iowa on Aug. 19, Gore spoke at length about his environmental commitment.

Gore said he and his vice presidential running mate Joe Lieberman have been leaders in the fight to improve the nation's health by protecting the environment, reducing smog, restoring clean drinking water and cleaning up toxic waste.

Gore said there are a lot of polluters who want to be able to cut corners and not spend the money necessary to clean up their own mess and just dump it in a way that hurts everybody else - into the air, into the water, into the global environment - because they just put their short term profits over the best interests of the people.

Gore criticized opponent Bush for not taking on polluters who ignore environmental protections in favor of higher profits.

Gore had the support of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Carol Browner, who criticized Bush's environmental record during a press event on Aug. 18. Browner noted that Houston, Texas is now "the most polluted city in the country," and blamed that fact on poor state funding under Bush for environmental protections. Texas currently ranks 49th out of the 50 states in environmental spending per capita.

"When we look to the future, it makes a difference if you have someone in the Oval Office who is willing to stand up to the oil companies and the big polluters and say the families of this country deserve better," said Gore in Dubuque.

The Bush campaign responded with a press release claiming that Texas ranks "first in reducing the amount of releases and disposal of toxics - more than all 49 states combined."

But according to the EPA's 1998 Toxics Release Inventory, released in May, 22 states have had larger reductions, by percentage, than Texas in 1998.

The same study shows that most of the industrial toxics reductions in Texas occurred from 1995 to 1996 - a 13 percent reduction - after Bush's first year in office. These reductions were due to policies put in place by his predecessor. Since 1996, there has been only a two percent reduction in industrial toxic pollution in Texas - the same rate as the U.S. average.

In recent years, releases of some industrial toxic pollution has risen in Texas. According to EPA, industrial toxics discharged into surface waters in Texas jumped 14 percent, to about 25 million pounds, from 1995 to 1998, ranking the state number three in the country in toxic releases.

"Bush and his flacks try to twist the numbers around, but the fact is there are many places in Texas where the air and water are dirty," said Ken Kramer of the Sierra Club's Lone Star Chapter. "Bush can't clear the air when he's the reason for the smog."

While environmental groups are almost unanimous in their criticism of Bush’s environmental record, not all are jumping on the Gore bandwagon. Green Party candidate Ralph Nader remains the top choice of many environmentalists who say Gore’s ties to big business, including his family's stock holdings in Occidental Petroleum, compromise the candidate’s commitment to environmental issues.

In California and some other western states, polls show that Nader could win up to 10 percent of voters - enough that those liberal states could end up going to Bush.

Gore could have difficulty winning over those voters unless he begins to offer more specifics regarding his environmental pledges, political analysts say. Gore is promising to protect forests, rivers and public lands, and clean up the nation's air and water, but has offered few concrete details regarding how he would pay for these projects.

Despite the Democrat's familiar refrain that environmental protection and economic growth can go hand in hand, some analysts say Gore's promises could lose more votes than they win if they are not backed up by hard facts. Environmentalists already concerned about Gore's ties to big business may interpret Gore's pledges as empty promises.

Meanwhile, the farmers, loggers, miners and others whose jobs could be threatened by tighter environmental regulations are asking whether Gore's environmental protections will include job protections.

Source: Environmental News Service

Back to news