Katie Elderkin & Michelle Giacobbe
ENTS 398: Senior Colloquium
Spring 2000

As the 21^st century starts, environmental problems keep growing and the need to fix them is more urgent. Our natural resources are becoming scarcer, and the levels of pollution continue to grow. The American President plays an important role in setting and driving the environmental agenda of the country. With the 2000 presidential election in six months, an important turning point regarding both the national and international environment is rapidly approaching. Both presidential candidates claim to have an environmental agenda in the election platforms, but the two platforms look very different. To understand these platforms, it helps to compare them both in general and on specific issues. This paper will focus on the issues of public lands, energy and the Kyoto Protocol.

The President of the United States holds many powers and plays many roles but there are certain ones that are especially important when it comes to the environment. Looking first at the domestic roles of the president, there are several areas of importance. One is the power of prestige. The office of the president is one that carries high levels of power and influence. If the president feels an issue such as the environment is important, he can put emphasis on it. He has the power to draw attention to the issue and shape public opinion. With the prestige of the White House behind the office of president, the American president can be a powerful force in focusing the attention of the public, either negatively or positively, on certain issues.

He can bring certain issues to Congress in the form of legislation. The president can also make appointments to both the judicial and executive branches. When Supreme Court judges retire, the president has the power to replace them, choosing ones that will be favorable to his positions. But in the field of the environment, this is less important than appointments to the executive branch. Appointments to the EPA especially can prove extremely influential. The use of this power by past presidents aptly illustrates what can happen. Reagan's appointments to the EPA are an excellent case. When Reagan was president he appointed Anne Gorsuch to head the EPA, as well as making lower-level appointments. When Reagan made this appointment, he knew he was appointing someone who was anti-environment. Combined with severe EPA budget cutbacks, the EPA lost power and was damaged. Despite Reagan eventually replacing Gorsuch in 1983, massive changes took place and the damage was done.

In this era of globalization where more environmental problems are becoming international, the fact that "[American] presidents have had much greater successes in controlling…foreign policies"(Wildavsky, 1966) is important. There are many fields (air and water pollution, global warming, hazardous waste) where the United States is only one part of the environmental problems. The United States is one of the world leaders, and our role in international environmental politics can set an example for other countries. In the same way that the president can direct public opinion on domestic matters, he can do the same in foreign matters. This is extremely important in foreign matters as people often are not as familiar or as up to date on foreign events, whatever the topic may be, as they are on domestic ones.

Although there are numerous environmental issues on the platforms of these two candidates, three are particularly significant both in their scope and in how they demonstrate the disparities between these two candidates: public lands, energy policy and global warming. Each candidate focuses on different aspects of each issue, which makes a direct comparison somewhat difficult.

Public lands policy, like most other environmental issues, is complicated and has many different components. For the most part, campaign platforms regarding public lands policies address issues of sprawl, national parks, and property rights. Urban sprawl is associated with increased car usage, and therefore increased air pollution. The issue surrounding national parks is to what extent they should be protected and what measures should be taken to that end. The last issue is possibly the most contentious and decisive of those associated with public lands policy. The question of how far a property owner's rights go is a fundamental problem in environmental policy-making. "Takings" legislation is an important aspect of this problem. "Takings" legislation would allow property owners to sue for compensation if they feel that government regulations decrease the value of their property. The value of the property may be decreased because the actions of the owner are limited because, for example, an endangered species is found on the land or because of pollution the activities may cause.

An issue even more complicated than public lands policy is energy policy. Perhaps the most pressing issue regarding energy policy is that of oil exploration and production. Where companies are allowed to drill for oil, especially in offshore areas or pristine areas, is a contentious issue. Energy substitutes are another popular topic regarding energy policy, namely the use of ethanol. Ethanol is an alternative fuel produced from corn. Lastly, the disposal of nuclear waste is another contentious issue.

Global climate change is perhaps the most prominent environmental issue in this presidential election. Each candidate's view on climate change can be understood by examining his stance on the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol was signed by 84 countries in December 1997. Twenty-two states have ratified the treaty; it will not come into effect until at least 55 parties or countries representing 55% of greenhouse gas emissions. The United States has yet to ratify the treaty. The purpose of the treaty is to reduce emissions of the greenhouse gases that are believed to cause the phenomenon of global warming. It is believed that increased temperatures caused by global warming can lead to rising ocean levels, extreme weather conditions, loss of biodiversity, more infectious disease, forest loss, reduced crop yield, desertification, and ecosystem damage. The major provision of the treaty is to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases below 1990 levels by 2012. The treaty includes joint implementation, the clean development mechanism, and the emissions credits program.

Al Gore Jr. is very well known as an environmentalist. His lifetime voting record has received a 64% from the League of Conservation Voters. In 1980, Gore was instrumental in the creation of Superfund legislation. In the Senate, he promoted energy conservation measures and the regulation of toxic emissions. As vice president, he has been considered "the most knowledgeable environmental advocate to reach such high office" (www.lcv.org). He has also been credited with making Clinton's administration eco-friendly. Very few environmentalists are critical of his environmental record. Some do complain that he is more talk than action; for the most part, however, he is supported by environmentalists.

Gore's stance on public lands issues is very clear. First of all, he has always been very concerned with urban and suburban sprawl, and he has made many promises to help combat this problem. He advocates increased use of mass transit to help combat the traffic and subsequent pollution problems that suburban sprawl causes. He also announced Clinton's "Livability Agenda" in early 1999. This plan includes tax credits for preservation bonds at the state and local level, as well as credits for public transportation initiatives. The purpose of this $1 billion dollar plan is to increase access to open spaces and to promote "smart growth." In addition, Gore has also proposed a $2 billion dollar plan to protect land and create new parks. The funding from this plan is set to come from increased mining fees. Lastly, Gore is an opponent of "takings" legislation. He believes that "takings" legislation effectively would require taxpayers to pay polluters to reduce pollution (Gore, "Takings..").

On the energy policy issues, Gore and Bush differ significantly. On the subject of oil drilling, Gore has promised to limit drilling off the coasts of California and Florida. He has also committed to vetoing legislation to open the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to drilling. The two promises demonstrate Gore's commitment to protecting habitats from drilling. In addition, Gore is supportive of ethanol subsidies. He believes that ethanol subsidies are not only good for farmers who grow the corn necessary to create ethanol, but also for the environment because as a gasoline additive it may help to meet clean air standards (www.lcv.org). Gore also highly criticized the Bush's administration and its role in the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Gore claims that Bush did not take the opportunity to search for fuel alternatives that are more environmentally friendly (www.lcv.org).

Further, Gore supports tax credits and business incentives for increased energy efficiency. Market-based solutions, claims Gore, are necessary to help protect the environment. In 1993, Gore supported the BTU tax on coal and gas. Gore also joined with the Big Three automakers to author the Public/Private Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles. The purpose of this is to triple the fuel efficiency of vehicles without increasing the cost or reducing quality or safety (www.issues2000.com). In 1994, Gore revealed his "supercar" project. This project would create a family car that would be capable of driving 80 miles per gallon. The plan would employ both government and private industry initiatives to create the "supercar" by 2004 (www.lcv.org). Lastly, in regards to the nuclear waste question, Gore is opposed to the construction of a temporary high-level nuclear waste facility in Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

Gore has suffered criticism on the issue of energy policy for a couple of reasons. First of all, environmentalists observe that Clinton and Gore promised during the 1992 presidential campaign to take a hard-line stance on CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) standards. They claim that in seven years, the administration has been silent on this issue. Another point of criticism is Gore's relationship with Occidental Petroleum. His father owned $500,000 of stock in the company before his death in 1998. As of May 1999, Gore, who is the executor of the estate had yet to sell the stock. The company has contributed more than $470,000 in "soft money" to the Democratic Party. Over $35,000 went directly to Gore in that time (Kriz, 2000). Environmentalists question the legitimacy of this relationship.

Global warming has traditionally been Gore's pet environmental issue. His book, Earth in the Balance, focuses on this issue. Gore has been an advocate of the Kyoto Protocol and was very instrumental in the negotiations in 1997. In fact, the League of Conservation Voters credits Gore with salvaging the United States' role at the negotiations (www.lcv.org). The United States, however, has yet to ratify the treaty. Some environmentalists may complain that Gore has not done everything necessary to ensure U.S. ratification of the treaty.

Gore's dedication to the issue of global warming is evident throughout his platform. He aims to get rid of the internal combustion engine, which he believes to interfere with the cleansing of the earth's atmosphere. He wants to adopt reasonable and achievable greenhouse gas reduction goals. Gore also believes that new and cleaner technology that can be used to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions can lead to greater productivity and new jobs in environmentally friendly industries.

Since 1994, George W. Bush Jr. has served as governor of Texas. His record as governor is important to look at as it helps suggest where his priorities lie. Even before he was governor, Bush started his strong ties with the oil industry when he founded his own oil and gas exploration company - ties that have continued through all six years as governor. Bush has made it very clear that he feels federal involvement is unnecessary and detrimental. "I say to the federal government 'Leave us alone. We know what we are doing. We are people of good judgement. We care about our land. We care about our water'" ("State blasts"). Yet, despite saying this, his environmental track record of governor is somewhat bleak. Not only has Houston recently overtaken Los Angeles as the smoggiest city in the country, but Texas is one of the most polluted states in the country. The saying goes "Everything is bigger in Texas"; that seems to apply to their environmental problems as well. Records show that while governor, Bush regularly asked industrialists, not environmentalists, for advice while writing environmental policies, and in some cases industry lawyers have written sections of the state environmental policy. On the brighter side, Bush took an active interest in cleaning up some of the multiple brownfields across Texas. In 1995, he signed legislation creating the Texas Voluntary Cleanup Program to provide incentives for voluntary cleanup of brownfields in the state without using the Superfund Program.

Bush's environmental platform has a series of main points. He is a strong believer that solutions to environmental problems come from best science. Opponents to this strategy argue that in many cases we cannot wait until we have concrete proof and that action needs to occur before the problem has grown. The Kyoto Protocol is an example of his best science argument. Only recently has Bush acknowledged the existence of global warming, but he is still opposed to the Kyoto Protocol on the grounds that there is not enough solid evidence (best science) to necessitate the protocol. On the other hand, he supports a moratorium on off shore oil drilling in California and Florida. He opposes the breaching of dams in the Pacific Northwest. This would protect endangered species as well as salmon in those areas. He does support the conservation of land, wetlands, and habitat but wants to see it done by private owners choosing to protect what is on their property. In general he is a heavy supporter of private property rights. He supports the Land and Water Conservation Fund, guaranteeing only 50% for local and state conservation. The final point of his platform is a desire to help repair and improve national parks, wildlife refuges and other public lands.

As his record as governor demonstrates, Bush favors state regulation regarding environmental issues. He feels that federal intervention in state environmental policies is not necessary. This principle would cover not only the enforcement of policies and regulations, but formation of them. To help control federal intervention, Bush would also push for takings legislation, which would allow private landowners to sue the federal government if property values were hurt due to government actions. If endangered species lived on the land and in order to protect it the government prohibited crop raising on part of it, decreasing the value, the owner could sue. Whether this would be the case if Bush was elected is uncertain.

When it comes to writing and instigating new environmental policies, Bush strongly favors voluntary programs. He argues that if industry receives the proper incentives they will voluntarily reduce their emissions and clean up their messes. Incentives could include monetary rewards or tax cuts. Especially in the area of air pollution, Bush would like to see these voluntary programs. He opposes the Clean Air Act of 1990 that his father signed. Bush also refuses to support a comprehensive, binding pollution program. The "binding" is the part he is especially against.

Public land is not an issue that is at the top of Bush's priorities when it comes to the environment. On his platform he claims he will "support alleviating the substantial repair and improvement backlog facing our national parks, wildlife refuges and other public lands" (www.georgewbush.com). Yet, after examining his record as governor it is hard to believe he means this. During his tenure as governor, no new parks were created, nor were plans made for purchasing land. There was not any funding from the state legislature for current parks. A state sales tax from visitors capped at $32 million provided the only funding although the parks needed $187 million for repairs. When the Texas parks commission tried to get Bush to lift the cap, Bush refused, adding $1.2 million for conservation of private lands only.

Again, the issue of protecting private land and property rights appears. As a proponent of property rights, Bush would strive to protect owners of private land from any impositions from the government that could arise from situations like the discovery of endangered species on property. Because of this Bush does not see the need for federal government oversight and policy. State initiative and policy is necessary to call the attention of landowners to the presence of endangered species on their property. According to Bush if they are aware of the presence, they will feel concerned about them and take appropriate action.

In October 1999 the Clinton administration unveiled a Public Lands Initiative. This initiative would affect 40 million acres of national forest land and would protect wildlife habitat, critical watersheds and would create recreational opportunities in the forests. Bush stated that he would overturn this initiative, a move that could open these lands to roads and logging.

Opponents of Bush's public lands policies also draw attention to Terry L. Anderson, one of Bush's main environmental advisors, who is apparently very influential. Anderson recently published a plan for auctioning off all public lands in the next twenty to forty years. According to him it will "improve environmental quality and economic efficiency" (Kamen, 2000).

The field of energy is one that was very close to Bush as a governor and likely would be if he became president. Texas is known for its oil business, and rightly so as it is one of the biggest oil suppliers in the country. Yet Bush's ties to oil appear to be more to the industry than anything else. Despite no longer running his company, the support for Bush from industry has not decreased. For example, in the first nine months of 1999, Bush received 79% of his backing from employees of oil, electric and automobile interests. While governor, oil industry lawyers played a role in writing environmental policy. Majority Whip Tom Delay (R-Tex) was quoted as wanting Bush for president because "then we'd have an energy policy that would develop oil and gas and we'd have a domestic supply" ("Meet the Press"). While Bush does support the moratorium of drilling for oil in California and Florida, he would still encourage explorations.

Nuclear waste is a field which Bush has not spoken too much about during his presidential campaign, but it was an issue during his governorship. He supported the Texas low-level Radioactive Waste Compact. This would have allowed Texas to accept low-level nuclear waste from Vermont and Maine in exchange for $25 million. The down side to this plan was that the planned dump for the waste would have been in Sierra Blanca, a poor Hispanic town without political power near the Mexican border. Bush received major protest from environmental justice advocates (including Paul Wellstone). Despite the protest, the compact was planned to go through until the discovery of an underground fault in the area.

Ethanol production is an area Bush expects to help the environment. He is pushing for a tax exemption for ethanol producers. He believes that it is not only good for the air, but that an increased use of it will decrease American dependence on foreign oil.

Discussion of renewable sources of energy such as solar or wind power has been noticeably lacking in Bush's environmental platform. It is a topic that has received very little focus. The only promise he has made so far regarding it is to "spend money on research and development to find additional uses for agriculture products" which include biomass.

The Kyoto Protocol is a current international environmental issue receiving attention. While not in favor of the protocol, Bush has recently acknowledged that global warming exists. This is a good first step, but for him to be convinced of the necessity of the Kyoto Protocol much more is going to have to happen. The role of best science is key here. Bush feels that there is not enough concrete evidence to support the protocol and the reductions that go with it. Bush is also concerned that if the United States does ratify the protocol that it could have devastating effects on business and could decrease the number of jobs in the United States. He also feels that the protocol would place an unfair burden on the US. That smaller, developing countries should have lighter restrictions and be allowed to continue to grow while the United States has to reduce appears unfair to him. According to Bush, the necessity just is not there. He believes that the United States can have a cleaner environment and more jobs. He summed up his feelings on the issue as follows: "It's going to cost jobs. I also don't appreciate the fact that the United States bears the brunt of the goals of Kyoto while underdeveloped, developing nations are really excluded from cleaning up the environment" (www.globalwarming.org).

Many critics of American politics claim that the Democratic and the Republican parties are quickly converging to become moderate parties. This may be the case if one were to consider many issues on the agenda. The environment, however, still serves to distinguish the two parties from one another. The candidates' stances on energy issues, public lands issues, and the Kyoto Protocol reflect these inherent differences. The histories and promises of Gore and Bush do differ dramatically in regards to environmental issues. The differences, however, do not always lie in their views on the environment. Instead, Bush and Gore differ mostly on their views on the role of the government in environmental issues. Gore advocates a strong governmental role, in terms of regulations and incentives. Bush, on the other hand, believes that the government should stay out of environmental decisions. It is also clear that the office of the Presidency is an important one in terms of environmental protection and policy-making.

Works Cited

• Georgewbush.com. Accessed at http://www.georgewbush.com/issues/domestic/environ/points.asp.
• Gore 2000. Accessed at http://www.algore2000.com.
• Gore, Al, "'Takings' bill creates new entitlement," Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 19 May 1996.
• Global Warming: Information Page. Accessed at http://www.globalwarming.org.
• Issues 2000: Every Presidential Candidates' View on Every Issue. Accessed at http://www.issues2000.org/Environment.htm#Headlines.
• Kamen, Al, "Sunday In the Loop," Washington Post, 30 January 2000. Accessed at http://www.washingtonpost.com.
• Kriz, Margaret, "Presidential Positions on the Environment," The National Journal, 1 April 2000. Accessed at http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe.
• League of Conservation Voters: Campaign 2000: Presidential Profiles: Al Gore. Accessed at http://www.lcv.org/presidential/gore.htm.
• NBC "Meet the Press" 19 March 2000. Accessed at www.lcv.org.
• "State blasts proposal to protect minnow," Dallas Morning News, 25 January 1995.
• Wildavsky, Aaron B., "The Two Presidencies," Transaction 4, no.2 (December 1966).