Bambi On The Run

From the “Air America” Web site (re: “Hundreds Of National Park Officials Protest New Rules”)

Proposed revisions of National Park policy have created a furor among present and former park officials who say the changes will weaken protections of natural resources and wildlife while allowing an increase in commercial activity.

"They are changing the whole nature of who we are and what we have been, I hope the public understands that this is a threat to their heritage. It threatens the past, the present and the future. It's painful to see this." said J.T. Reynolds, superintendent of Death Valley National Park.

The Bush administration official pushing the changes is Paul Hoffman, appointed in 2002 as deputy assistant secretary of the Interior, and was formerly the director of the Chamber of Commerce in Cody, Wyoming.

The controversy is yet another attack by the administration on our national parks; including diverting up to 28% of park funding to 'anti-terrorism activities and competitive sourcing studies', and misleading the public on scientific issues.

As long as we're exploring Bushco's environmental policy, I should republish the following item from the old site (gives me a good excuse). This is a Guest Opinion from the Bucks County Courier Times written by Deborah Colgan, R.N., in response to a writer named Robin Hoy who voted for Dubya last November because she was under the mistaken impression that a good "christian" man of such "moral values" would take it upon himself to actually exercise sound stewardship of something handed down to him that he doesn't own and is obligated to preserve for future generations.

Robin Hoy’s March 13 Guest Opinion states: “While many of us helped vote Bush into office…(we) did not intend our vote to translate into a green light to harm God’s earth and its creatures.”

Excuse me? Just what did you think Bush was going to do? Voting for Bush declared your approval of his policies. If environmental protection was a concern, as Hoy states, she could never have voted for him. When she cast her ballot in November, Bush’s environmental stand was clearly established.

In 2001, Bush began his assault on the Clean Water Act by relying on flawed studies that claimed regulation of CO2 would be too costly and that CO2 wasn’t covered under the CWA. He suspended a ban on the awarding of contracts to companies that violate federal laws. Bush sought to relax requirements of the Endangered Species Act and considered lifting the ban on the recycling of radioactive waste in consumer scrap metal.

He began his move to weaken CWA rules that required power plants to employ anti-pollution devices when upgrading their facilities – a key rule that would significantly reduce polluting emissions. He proposed relaxing Army Corps of Engineers rules designed to protect streams and wetlands and furthered the opening of protected National Forest lands to road building.

In 2002, Bush announced his Clear Skies initiative that would allow three times the mercury emissions, 50 percent more sulfur and more nitrogen oxide emissions. He slashed toxic waste cleanup funding. He began efforts to exempt the military from federal environmental laws. He took actions to make mountaintop mining easier, which literally removes mountaintops and fills in surrounding streams, completely destroying the habitat.

He further weakened the CWA by redefining areas that are designated as waterways and changed the rules that identified a waterway as polluted. He refused to finalize rules that limited pollution from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), a major point source of pollution.

In 2003, Bush refused to ban the herbicide atrazine, whose presence in our drinking water is a known carcinogen. He continued his practice of eroding protections against mercury in our rivers by using bad scientific data and exempting chlorine plants from emissions restrictions. He exempted some oil and gas drillers from regulations designed to reduce pollution run-offs.

He ordered administration staff to keep quiet on the debate regarding the toxic chemical percholate. He speeded up the process for oil and gas development in order to side-step environmental protection examinations. He lifted the ban on the sale of PCB-contaminated land and he proposed allowing low-level radioactive waste in landfills.

In 2004, with his campaign in full swing, government scientists, as well as 48 Nobel laureates, decried the administration’s practice of ignoring sound scientific advice when developing public policy. The National Council of Churches publicly denounced the administration’s actions that “weaken critical environmental standards.” The White House manipulation of scientific reports on mercury was exposed – language was changed to minimize the real threat of mercury on public health. Bush proposed increasing the amount of selenium releases, a toxic metal known to be poisonous.

The sale of Bureau of Land Management lands for drilling, mining and development were increased. Logging rules that require wildlife populations to be considered in the management of National Forest lands were altered, as well as limiting the process for public input in such decisions. Bush violated an international treaty by allowing certain agribusinesses to continue with the use of methyl bromide, a known contributor to ozone depletion and cancer rates.

And this is only a brief glimpse at Bush’s destructive first-term environmental record.

If someone says they share the tenets of your faith, it doesn’t mean he will act within your personal definition of morality. So be careful if you vote for someone based solely on religious ideology. Ms. Hoy asks, “Whose mandate is this, anyway?” Well, if you voted for Bush, it’s yours.