- The Washington Times - Saturday, April 14, 2001

If President Bushs environmental policies are so threatening to global survival, why werent the same people squawking that the planet was about to boil over when President Clinton was in office?

When you look at the policies, instead of the rhetoric, Clinton-Gore vs. Bush-Cheney are practically identical in the three areas for which Mr. Bush has taken the most heat Kyoto global warming treaty, old power plant emissions and arsenic in drinking water. Democrats have bashed Mr. Bush for angering European leaders because he backed away from the Kyoto agreement. Ha. The Clinton administration did as much last year when treaty negotiations with Europeans collapsed over the administration´s push for greenhouse-gas credits for forests and farmlands. Where were the Europhiles then?

Yes, Mr. Clinton made a green-friendly gesture by signing the Kyoto treaty in 1998. But the administration never expended any political capital on making it valid by presenting the treaty to the U.S. Senate for ratification.

Of course, Clintonia understood that it couldn´t get the Senate to ratify Kyoto. Before Vice President Al Gore left for Japan to negotiate the treaty in 1997, the Senate voted 95-0 for a resolution stating the United States should not accept a treaty that exempted developing nations. Mr. Gore negotiated a treaty that did just that.

Which should tell readers that rather than making Mr. Bush an Evil Pollution-Hugger and anti-enviro extremist, his position puts him in the middle of the U.S. Senate. Barbra Streisand recently accused Mr. Bush of "poisoning our air" because he is not keeping his campaign pledge to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from old power plants.

Shame on Mr. Bush not for flip-flopping, but for cynically making a promise he had to know he could not keep with natural gas prices spiking. As the president told reporters in March, "In order to meet those caps, our nation would have had to have had a lot of natural gas immediately flow into the system, which is impossible. We don´t have the infrastructure able to move natural gas." And Mr. Bush knew that last fall. Still, it should be noted that Mr. Bush reverted to the same standards that were good enough for Mr. Clinton and "Earth in the Balance" Al Gore for almost eight years. Were Mr. Clinton and Mr. Gore "poisoning our air?"

Ditto the Bush move to rescind Mr. Clinton´s final-days order to reduce the permissible parts per billion of arsenic in drinking water from 50 parts per billion to 10. The New York Times labeled the move as "political suicide." Then why wasn´t it suicidal for Clinton to keep the standard up until the final days of his exit from the White House?

You see, when Dems agree to standards that won´t mutilate the economy, pundits hail them as moderates.

There are important differences in other areas. The former president opposed drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Mr. Bush all bow supports drilling in the refuge, even if that offends the sensibilities of Bay Area SUV Democrats.

But when you look at the three areas where Mr. Bush has taken the most hits Kyoto, CO2 and arsenic his actions fit right in with Clintonia in terms of policy. Inside the Beltway, if you talk green, you don´t have be all that green. If you don´t talk green, you better be green all the way.

Sign up for Daily Newsletters

Manage Newsletters

Copyright © 2020 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide