 |
  |
 |
||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||||||
|
TOXIC
STRINGS ATTACHED The needs for clean air, water and soil are nonpartisan. But the two leading candidates for U.S. president have starkly different track records when it comes to their support of legislation that affects our natural resources. The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) gave John Kerry an 'A' grade for his lifetime environmental voting record, while George W. Bush earned the first-ever failing grade on an LCV presidential report card.
"The Bush administration has gone backwards on the bipartisan environmental progress that has gone on in the past 30 years," says LCV spokesman Mark Sokolove. Despite these differences, the environment has taken a back seat in the presidential race, possibly because Americans don't view it as something that effects their daily lives. "When people think of the environment as an electoral issue, they think of birds and bunnies and mountains," says Aimée Christiensen, executive director of Environment 2004, a PAC opposing George W. Bush on the grounds of his environmental policies. Rather than being of peripheral concern, says Christiensen, the quality of our environment is intrinsically connected to something everyone cares about. "When Bush undermines environmental protections," she says, "he is actually undermining public health."
LIES ON CLEAR SKIES During the second presidential debate on Oct. 8, Bush said, "The quality of the air's cleaner since I've been the president." But the EPA reports that American cities exceeded clean air standards 33 percent more often, and almost 20 million more Americans breathed smoggy air, in 2002 than in 2000. Bush claims that his Clear Skies Initiative cuts emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury — all of which are known human health hazards — by 70 percent. But the LCV claims that the opposite is true; the initiative actually allows industries to emit more sulfur dioxide, smog-forming nitrogen oxides and mercury than current law. The Clear Skies Initiative also reclassifies carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as nonpollutants, a move that prompted Oregon and Washington to sue the Bush administration. "If you just left the Clean Air Act all alone the way it is today, no change, the air would be cleaner than it is if you pass the Clear Skies Act," said John Kerry in response to Bush's claims during the second presidential debate. "We're going backwards." In Nov. 2002, the Bush administration weakened a Clean Air Act provision that requires old power plants to upgrade their pollution control technology when they expand or renovate their operations. The decision may affect the lungs of more than 12,600 children in Oregon who live within 30 miles of a coal power plant, according to LCV estimates. "Bush's policies regarding clean air in general have been abominable. They actually allow more pollution in the air and don't clean up the skies," says Sokolove. "Air pollution is a leading contributor to asthma and other respiratory problems, particularly in children. It drives up health care costs." Sokolove says that one of Bush's most dangerous air-pollution policies regards mercury, a highly poisonous neurotoxin linked with autism, Alzheimer's disease and birth defects. The third-biggest source of mercury exposure for Americans, after dental fillings and vaccines, is seafood contaminated by emissions from coal-burning power plants. In a recent EPA study of 260 lakes across the nation, 100 percent of fish sampled were contaminated with mercury. One in six American women of childbearing age now harbors enough mercury in her body to put her children at risk of developmental problems.
When Bush assumed the presidency in 2000, the Clinton administration was poised to define mercury as a hazardous pollutant under the Clean Air Act. This would have required coal-fired utilities to reduce mercury emissions by 90 percent by 2008 — a simple task that can be accomplished by installing available pollution control technology. But instead of enforcing the new mercury restrictions, the Bush administration modified the Clean Air Act to allow three times more mercury to be released into the air for at least 10 years longer. "Mercury is a poison. We think it's an outrage that this issue has not taken more priority in the presidential election," says Christiensen. "When Bush does not seek reductions of the greatest hazardous substances, he does so at the expense of national security."
GUTTING CLEAN WATER LAWS The 30-year-old Clean Water Act authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate industrial discharge into American waterways. But even though the act led to more stringent controls on water pollution, by 2000 about 45 percent of America's waterways were too polluted for drinking, fishing or swimming, according to an EPA report. Almost one-fourth of all lakes and river miles in Oregon have impaired water quality. Instead of strengthening the Clean Water Act to improve the safety of our water, the Bush administration did the opposite. In January 2003, Bush's EPA appointees proposed changes to the Clean Water Act that would make it only applicable to "navigable" waters, removing protections for up to 60 percent of America's streams and 20 million acres of wetlands. Public and Congressional outcry led the administration to drop the proposal, but the EPA still follows instructions to seek permission from D.C. before enforcing water protections for seasonal streams and wetlands. The Bush administration has not been shy about other policies that pollute the nation's fresh water supply. On Bush's first day in office, his administration weakened regulations against sewage overflows from factory farms, one of the biggest health threats to municipal water supplies. In 2001, Vice-President Dick Cheney's secret energy task force drafted a provision that allows gasoline producers off the hook for cleaning up the gasoline additive MTBE, a chemical that makes groundwater undrinkable even at trace levels. And when the EPA tried to impose a new standard on drinking water to decrease acceptable levels of a highly toxic rocket fuel additive called perchlorate, which has been found in nearly all of the nation's winter lettuce, the Bush administration delayed action by ordering a 15-month review of the proposal. New rules imposed by Bush appointees allow mining operations to dump mine wastes — even entire mountaintops — directly into streams and rivers. The list goes on. All of these actions lead toward more polluted American waterways, with untold consequences for public health. "The terrorist attacks on 9/11 killed 3,000 people," says Eugene environmentalist James Johnston, "but 3,000 people per month are going to die from the crud that the EPA is allowing industry to put in our water."
HAZARDS NEAR HOME In 1980, Congress passed legislation to remediate the nation's most hazardous dumps. The law, founded on the "polluter pays" principle, requires industries to pay fees into a trust account called Superfund to clean up toxic waste sites. President Reagan signed Superfund into law and President George H.W. Bush reauthorized it. But in 1995, Congress failed to renew the corporate taxes that finance Superfund, shifting the burden to taxpayers. And George W. Bush's administration is the first to reject the "polluter pays" principle outright. A July 2003 report from the General Accounting Office details how the Superfund Trust Fund dwindled from more than $2 billion in 1995 to bankruptcy in September 2003. In 2004, taxpayers financed almost 80 percent of Superfund; in 2005, taxpayers will foot almost 100 percent of the bill. As a result, only half as many Superfund cleanups have been completed during Bush's presidency than during Clinton's second term, and fewer sites make it onto the Superfund list. "Those toxins are just left in our soil and they will threaten our water and poison our communities for even longer," says Christiensen. Oregon contains 10 Superfund sites, but only one — the dump for McCormick and Baxter Creosoting Company — is receiving funding for cleanup in 2004. And taxpayers are financing most of it. A U.S. PIRG analysis shows that in 1995, Superfund cleanups cost Oregon taxpayers about $3 million; in 2004, they will cost an estimated $10 to $12 million. The negligence of Oregon's Superfund sites has led the state to sue the federal government. According to a 2004 EPA Inspector General report, one in four Americans now lives within four miles of a toxic waste site. They may be exposed to chemicals that can cause a spectrum of ailments including cancer, neurological damage and birth defects. Ann Lewis, director of the Democratic National Committee's Women's Vote Center, says that hazardous waste disproportionately affects women and children. "Women take environmental issues very seriously and make the 'environment is about my family's health' connection," says Lewis. "Women's bodies are more vulnerable to pollution." But until Superfund receives the financing it needs to complete its priority projects, there is nothing much that Americans can do to shield their families from hazardous wastes. "I'm a pretty good mom," says Lewis, "but I can't protect my children if there is a toxic waste site a block from our house."
POLLUTERS' CARTE BLANCHE A new study from the nonpartisan Environmental Integrity Project reports that the EPA has filed 75 percent fewer civil lawsuits against polluters during the first three years of Bush's presidency than it did during Clinton's last three years in office.
"I think what we've seen consistently from President Bush is the prioritizing of industry," says Christiensen. "And that's been a systematic effort. The Bush administration has put so many industrial lobbyists in government agencies, and they are there to undermine every environmental protection that they've had to fight as lobbyists." Industrial leaders often protest environmental regulations on the grounds that the science backing them is faulty or inconclusive. "Every time industry cries wolf," says Christiensen, "we see this administration taking industrial claims on face value and implementing them rather than listening to the analyses and the science from the EPA." That means that polluters, and the Bush administration, will get away with poisoning countless Americans — unless Bush is defeated on Nov. 2.
FRESH AIR When it comes to the stewardship of America's natural resources and their impacts on human wellness, John Kerry and Bush are as different as a river and a cesspool. From Bush's first day in office, he has worked to make life easier for some of the filthiest industries in the nation. His administration eased emission regulations, slackened enforcement against polluters and shifted the tab for cleanup from industry to taxpayers. The result: people are now breathing smoggier air, drinking dirtier water and living in more toxic environments than they did four years ago. According to the Center for Disease Control, 100 million Americans now live with some form of chronic disease, and the numbers are rising. "Bush has taken us back to the old days when it was 'environment versus economy' instead of linking environmental concerns with public health," says Christiensen. Kerry's perspective on the environment is quite different. Since entering the Senate in 1985, Kerry's votes have consistently supported environmentally responsible legislation and opposed harmful laws. During his career as a Massachusetts senator, Kerry has repeatedly introduced legislation to promote cleaner air, water and soil. He advocates for the public's right to know about the presence of persistent toxic chemicals in their communities, and he fought to re-instate Superfund's "polluter pays" principle. He supports government subsidies to develop renewable energy resources, and he pushes for the U.S. to engage with the international community to combat global warming. "John Kerry has a 20-year record in the Senate of standing up for clean air and clean water," says Christiensen. "What I see in John Kerry is a man who has backbone and is willing to stand up even to members of his own party when he feels it's right. He lets his faith guide his treatment of our environment as a moral value."
Fighting
Green with Green Timber barons and land speculators have spent big money this election to pursue their anti-environmental agenda. Here's a look at their purchases at the local, state and federal levels. LOCAL Timber barons and developers have opened their wallets to buy a key swing seat on the Lane County Commission so they can cash in on natural destruction and urban sprawl. Big timber and developer contributions filled two-thirds of Republican Faye Stewart's campaign war chest, according to a look at reported contributions of $500 or more by Oct. 17. Timber barons have pumped $37,300 into Stewart's campaign for the East Lane seat in 17 contributions of $500 or more. That's 37 percent of the $101,823 total Stewart reported raising. Stewart, himself a member of a rich timber baron family, personally contributed $18,300 of that money in loans and cash. Other members of his timber family contributed another $2,500. Fourteen other timber barons kicked in another $19,500 in donations of $500 or more. Siuslaw Forest Properties of Mapleton and Swanson forest products gave $2,500 each. Starfire Lumber President Robbie Robinson and the Murphy Plywood mill gave $2,000 each. The Zip-O-Log mill and Pleasant Hill logging executive Darrin Kronberger gave $1,500 each. Rosboro Lumber, Roseburg Forest Products and Seneca Jones Timber gave $1,000 each. Big donations from 20 development interests have funded 30 percent of Stewart's campaign with $30,950 in contributions of $500 or more. Arlie and Company gave $6,700, the Giustina family of land and real estate speculators gave $3,250, and Wildish (sand, gravel, construction and land) gave $2,800. Arlie is headed by John Musumeci, the land speculator who made $20 million by facilitating the effort to move PeaceHealth from downtown to far north Springfield. McDougal Brothers, who speculate on land around Eugene's urban growth boundary, and Greg Demers, who has speculated on land at the western end of the proposed West Eugene Parkway, each gave $2,000. Land and real estate speculator Donna Woolley gave $1,500; the Gonyea land speculation family gave $1,500; the pro-sprawl Oregon Realtors PAC gave $1,450; and gravel magnate Mike Altucker, who wants a huge new pit off River Road, gave $1,250. Construction and rock company owner Bob Mullins, real estate speculator Hult and Associates, Cottage Grove developer Tod Woodward and media, construction and land tycoon Carolyn Chambers gave $1,000 each. The Eugene Chamber of Commerce, which lobbies for urban sprawl and developer subsidies, contributed $1,250. STATE Measure 37 would require taxpayers to either pay developers and land speculators hundreds of millions of dollars or allow them to destroy Oregon's environment and livability for profit. Timber barons and land speculators have pumped big bucks into the pro-Measure 37 campaign. The pro-37 PAC reported $835,000 in contributions by Oct. 22—the vast majority in big piles of cash from timber and development interests from the Eugene area. Local timber baron Aaron Jones gave $113,000, the single largest contribution. Musumeci's land speculation company gave $25,000. Timber baron and land speculator Donna Woolley gave $25,000. Veneta land speculator Demers gave $15,000. The Gonyea and Giustina families, speculators and developers, gave $10,000 and $20,000 respectively. Jeld-Wen, a Klamath Falls door and window mill diversified into land speculation and developing resorts, gave $90,000. Wes Lematta, a helicopter logging tycoon from Vancouver, Wash., gave $37,500. Measure 34 would save half of the Tillamook and Clatsop state forests from clearcuts but cost the timber industry millions in logging profits. Timber barons have slammed Measure 34 with a $2.7 million campaign, outspending supporters seven to one. Four big timber corporations put up almost half the money — Hampton Lumber ($397,429), RSG Forest Products ($283,716), Stimson Lumber ($279,939) and Boise Cascade ($180,557). Other large donors are a laundry list of the state's biggest timber corporations: Roseburg Forest Products ($82,242), Freres Lumber ($72,675), Swanson Group lumber ($41,095), Cascade Timber Consulting ($35,311), Rosboro lumber ($32,057), Menasha Log Co. ($31,743), Green Diamond logging ($29,711), South Coast Lumber ($27,555), Banks Lumber ($23,699), Starker Forests, Inc. ($16,736) and Future Logging Co. ($16,487) The Timber industry is also deploying big bucks to battle for control of the state Legislature. In local House District 14, for example, timber lobbyists from the Oregon Forest Industries Council gave $4,000 to Republican Debi Farr in her race against Democrat Bev Ficek. The Boise Cascade and Georgia-Pacific lumber companies and Murphy Plywood have also given Farr $500 each. FEDERAL George Bush backers from Eugene gave $318,914 to support their candidate compared to $225,059 in local money for Kerry, according to presidential and party donations through the end of August. The biggest source of Bush bucks in Eugene is the local Giustina family of loggers and land speculators who gave $62,000. The Aaron Jones timber baron family came in second with $31,250 in contributions. The Egge family, owners of a local gravel mining and land company, gave $25,850 to back Bush. Randy Papé of the Papé heavy construction and logging equipment company gave $10,000. The Gonyea family, logging and land speculation, gave another $8,000. The Woolley family, logging and real estate speculation, gave $8,450. Other big donors include the Tykeson (real estate speculation) $8,250, Murphy (lumber mill) $6,500, Lee $4,500 (developers), and Stewart (logging) $4,250 families. Just outside Eugene, the Demers land speculation family of Veneta contributed a total of $27,000 to re-electing Bush. The Chambers family of Pleasant Hill (construction, media and land speculation) contributed a total of $7,000 to the Bush campaign. Statewide, the Bush campaign has been given a huge boost by the Oregon timber industry, which stands to cash in on Bush policies for repealing environmental protections and logging green old growth in burned and roadless areas. According to a recent report by the public interest group Common Cause, 14 Oregon timber companies donated more than $670,000 to Bush and the Republican Party during the 2000, 2002 and 2004 election cycles. The Timber barons are also backing Republican Jim Feldkamp's attack against local Democratic Congressman Peter DeFazio. Timber barons Rob Freres, John Hampton, Don Johnson, Foster Robinson, BB Starker, Steven Swanson and Donna Woolley gave Feldkamp $4,000 each. Timber barons Richard Sohn ($2,700), Aaron Jones ($2,000), BC McFarland ($2,000), Everett Johnson ($1,500) and the Giustina family ($1,000) also wrote big checks. Feldkamp has attacked DeFazio for not doing enough in Congress to get out the cut.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
