Pacific Views

Bush's Clean Air Promises

[Ed: This article was first published for Vox Populi Nebraska in September and is the third in my series on the environment.]

In 2000, when George W. Bush campaigned for President, he said he stood behind the need for a healthy environment. Many in Texas shuddered when they heard his words because they knew that what he really meant was the need for a good healthy money making environment for his corporate contributors. His contributors didn't think they should have to hassle with environmental regulations, and neither did Bush.

Here is what Governor Bush said during his campaign.

"Vote for me. I'm for clean air and clean water. I'm for setting high standards based upon science, based upon reality, based upon making sure that the decision-making, that the decisions we make is based upon what works and what's real. I believe the federal government has a role to set high standards, but the federal government must work with local stakeholders, must work with folks to achieve those standards." [Source: Online NewsHour: Bush's Environmental Record, August 22, 2000]

During that campaign, Bush often said that he would "do for America what I have done for Texas" and this became the way people talked about Bush's promises for America:

"GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH can do for America what he has done for Texas -- reform education, cut taxes, create jobs, improve the environment, provide accessible health care and create a safer place for parents to raise their children. " (Emphasis added) [Source: Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, November 2, 2000]

Did George W. Bush do for America what he had done for Texas regarding the environment? Today, the answer is a resounding yes. But, what was the record, and what did he really promise to do to the rest of America?

When Governor Bush ran for President in 2000, he ran on a record where Texas ranked #1 for the dirtiest air in the country. In fact, under his watch, the air in Texas grew dirtier while elsewhere, like Los Angeles, the air got cleaner.

Just why did the air get worse in Texas during this time? In 1996, the regulators in Texas were ready to clamp down on the biggest polluters in Texas. Just in time, George Bush rode to the rescue of these beleaguered corporations. Under the direction of Ralph Martinez, his appointee to the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC - the Texas agency equivalent to the EPA), some major industry representatives came up with a voluntary pollution abatement program concerning "grandfathered" plants. This program was created without any public involvement, but with lots of industry input. Once all the parties (industry and Bush's representatives) agreed to the terms, the TNRCC was asked to vote on it. Since the commission members had been appointed by Bush, the results were predictable: the seven industry representatives voted for it while the four citizen/environmental representatives voted to against it. [Source: TX PEERS ]

Grandfathered industrial plants are those plants that were "grandfathered in" when the original clean air law was enacted in 1970. In the case of energy companies, any power plant that was built before the laws were enacted is exempt from stricter regulations unless they undergo a major upgrade to increase the capacity of a plant. For these plants, emission levels were grandfathered to the pre-1970s levels with the belief that within a few years they would be taken offline for cleaner, more efficient plants. In the 1970s no one ever expected these plants to still be polluting at the same (or greater) levels in 2003.

Bush likes to talk about measuring results. I agree that setting standards and measuring results can be quite effective in making sure programs work. For this program, the targets set for reducing the amount of "grandfathered" emissions was to cut out 25,000 tons out of the 900,000 tons emitted in 1996 (or 3% of the total).

After the program had been put into effect, the measured success was one sixth of the 3% target. How did this dismal result change the program? Well, not at all. Under Bush's standards, despite the fact that voluntary commitments did not reach the promised goals, there were no consequences.

That was in Texas. What does this mean for the nation?

Recently, President Bush's Clean Air promises are once again under examination. The EPA has rewritten the rules governing "grandfathered" polluters so that they can promise to meet voluntary standards and not worry about strict regulations forcing them to meet a firm target (as he did in Texas). A number of eastern states have sued the Bush administration to challenge this change. Furthermore, because Bush controls the regulatory arm of the government, he is able to modify the original regulations, which now only allow routine maintenance for grandfathered industrial plants before requiring them to follow today's clean air regulations. Bush's EPA is ready to release new rules that would make it possible for old polluting plants to add major upgrades without any additional pollution controls, thus allowing them to pollute even more than before.

Along with the month of August, Friday afternoons before people leave for the weekend have always been the slowest times for news. News released during these times (especially news released on an August Friday afternoon) is almost always guaranteed to disappear by the following Monday. So it is no wonder that the new rule change proposed by the EPA for exempting upgrades to old polluting plants from stricter pollution control would be released on a Friday afternoon in August. Don't let the timing of the announcement lull you into thinking that this news isn't a big deal.

George W. Bush is trying to create a record that not only matches his accomplishments in Texas, but actually makes it possible for his corporate polluting friends to pollute even more than before. He is overachieving on his promise to do for America what he did for Texas.

You can find out more about President George W Bush's record on the Environment by visiting http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/.

Posted by Mary at December 22, 2003 01:39 AM | TrackBack