 An Ongoing Feature: A compilation of President Bush's |
An Ongoing Feature: A compilation of President Bush's |
Transportation Department Acknowledges Intervention in California Emissions Waiver Request
June 13, 2007 — By Ericka Werner, Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- The Transportation Department acknowledged Tuesday encouraging members of Congress to weigh in with the EPA on California's request to implement global warming controls on automakers.
California officials criticized the intervention by one executive branch agency with another as improper and possibly illegal, but a Transportation Department attorney said it wasn't.
The Environmental Protection Agency is accepting comments through Friday on whether to grant California a waiver to put in place a state law that would cut greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent from cars and 18 percent from sport utility vehicles beginning in 2009.
If California gets the waiver, at least 11 other states are ready to follow its lead and implement those same controls.
The auto industry favors one nationwide regulation, saying letting states have their own rules could lead to a patchwork of regulations.
That's the outcome a Transportation Department official warned of in a voicemail message left for a congressional aide and made public Tuesday by a Democratic committee chairman. In response the Transportation Department's acting general counsel, Rosalind Knapp, contended that the agency was simply providing information to members of Congress.
"DOT contacted members of Congress to inform them of the pending petition so they could consider providing formal comments to EPA," Knapp wrote late Tuesday to Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. "DOT's actions in no way violated anti-lobbying restrictions."
Knapp did not say how many members of Congress were contacted or who, and a Transportation Department spokesman declined to comment further.
Earlier in the day, Waxman sent a letter to the Transportation Department demanding answers about the voicemail message left by Heideh Shahmoradi, a Transportation special assistant for government affairs. Waxman obtained the message from the lawmaker who received it and asked to remain anonymous.
In the message, Shahmoradi said that if California gets its waiver a "patchwork of regulations ... could have significant impacts on the light truck and car industry."
"We're gauging to see if your boss would be interested in submitting comments or reaching out to your governor's office for them to submit comments to the docket, since this would greatly impact auto facilities within your district," she said.
Waxman wrote that the call "raises serious concerns" as an improper or possibly illegal use of federal resources, and at the very least "suggests the presence of an improper hidden agenda." He asked for records of any other contacts and said he wanted to depose Shahmoradi.
California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez called the Transportation Department's intervention "a whispering campaign by administration officials to try and derail one of the most important tools out there to fight global warming."
The EPA has not indicated when, or if, it will grant the waiver.
Source: Associated Press
THE TIMES/BLOOMBERG POLL
Bush's Grade on Environment Falls
Most seek more action, but few want caps on emissions or stricter mileage standards.By Bettina Boxall
Times Staff Writer
August 4, 2006
More Americans than ever disapprove of President Bush's handling of the environment, according to a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll, which also has found that spiraling fuel costs are altering household spending habits.
Fifty-six percent of respondents in the national poll said the Bush administration was doing too little to protect the environment. The negative rating was up considerably from The Times' last major survey on the environment, in 2001, when 41% said he wasn't doing enough.
Nevertheless, despite growing disenchantment with administration policies, most people share the president's preference for investment in new technologies over mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions.
Respondent Lisa Brutvan, 42, a real estate consultant from Atlanta who is not registered with any political party, said she voted for Bush because of his stance on terrorism. "I knew in making that decision that I was making a choice against the environment. I figured that for eight years we could survive it," she said. "But I think it's reaching a little bit more of a critical mass.
"At some point you've just got to look at things realistically and realize we're not leaving much of a legacy for our grandchildren if we don't address these issues," she said. She faulted Bush's position on global warming in particular.
The survey of 1,478 adults, conducted over five days ending Tuesday, revealed a growing awareness of global warming. More than seven in 10 said it was a serious problem, and 58% said the Bush administration was doing too little to reduce it.
Three-quarters said they had cut back on household spending or taken steps to conserve energy in response to rising energy costs. Forty-five percent said they approved of oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska; 51% opposed it.
Less than 10% said the government should mandate stricter mileage standards to reduce reliance on foreign oil, whereas 52% said the government should invest in alternative energy sources such as wind and solar power. (An additional 3% volunteered that the government should take both those measures and more.) And to cut carbon dioxide emissions linked to global warming, 56% favored market incentives to develop new technology, compared with 11% in favor of capping emissions from vehicles and businesses; 12% volunteered that the government should do both, and 15% said the government did not need to do anything more.
The survey also asked about nuclear power, with 61% saying they would support increased use of such energy "in order to prevent global warming."
Although the public agrees with the administration on some points, in general Americans say they want more action on environmental problems. By a margin of more than 2 to 1, they also say congressional Democrats do a better job on the environment than Republicans.
A strong partisan divide, as well as a regional divide, marked people's assessments. The president got his worst marks in the West and East, where slightly less than a third approve of his handling of environmental issues. He got his best score in the South, where 54% approve. Most Republicans, 74%, backed him on the environment, compared with 18% of Democrats.
"I think he's done an extremely poor job," said Democrat Herb Alston, 43, a real estate agent in San Francisco, complaining that Bush's appointees to agencies responsible for the environment had been too closely linked to business.
On the whole, Americans exhibited a strong environmental bent in the Times/Bloomberg poll, which was conducted under the supervision of Times Polling Director Susan Pinkus and had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Three-fourths of respondents said they believed business would "cut corners and damage the environment" without strong government regulation. Fifty-seven percent of respondents — including two-thirds of Westerners — said that if improving the environment conflicted with economic growth, the environment should take priority.
Twenty percent said environmental standards should be relaxed to allow more gas and oil drilling to lessen the nation's reliance on foreign oil. But in the West, where the Bush administration has moved aggressively to expedite energy production on public land, half that proportion favored looser drilling regulations.
Although the Bush administration has advocated increased access for snowmobiles and other forms of motorized recreation in national parks such as Yellowstone, a substantial majority opposes such measures. In the West, home to many of the nation's most popular parks, 80% called for limiting access to snowmobiles and all-terrain vehicles to protect natural habitat and wildlife. Nationally, the figure was 77%.
"I'm not a huge fan of snowmobiles," said Democrat Dasal Ridgley, 26, a student from Iowa City, Iowa. "It gives people easier access, but it also destroys the land."
But support has risen 11 percentage points since 2001 for another Bush initiative: opening the Alaska wildlife refuge to oil drilling.
"It can be drilled with minimal environmental harm," said Republican Bill Leslie, 65, a retired motion picture producer who lives in Dallas. He has a brother who supplies inspection and safety equipment to the Alaskan oil industry.
"There's always a risk when you drill," Leslie said. "But there's a lot of stuff in place that keeps the spillage from seeping into the ground…. It's not something where you find hundreds of moose running into sludge."
Leslie, who approves of Bush's environmental record and voted for him, also thinks pollution is getting too much of the blame for climate change.
"Sometimes I think people cry more wolf than is necessary as far as global warming is concerned," he said. "It's a cyclical thing…. There are some things that we create. But even if man wasn't on this planet, the ice caps in the Arctic would begin to melt."
Still, he favors government action to reduce emissions, even if it means higher energy prices. "I think because we consume a major portion of the fossil fuel, we need to be wary of it."
Global warming is attracting more public attention, but not because Americans are rushing off to see Al Gore's documentary on the topic. Only 4% of those questioned had seen the film, "An Inconvenient Truth."
The percentage of those who said they hadn't read or heard enough about global warming to answer questions about climate change dropped to 6%, from 14% in the 2001 Times poll. And the percentage who said it was a "very serious problem" rose to 43% in this week's survey, from 33%.
Bush has resisted placing mandatory curbs on heat-trapping greenhouse gases, contending that they would hurt the economy and that it was unclear how much human-caused pollution had contributed to climate change. The stance has put him at odds with a growing number of states, including California, that are moving to adopt their own limits on greenhouse emissions.
In the poll, 47% said global warming was caused by human activities; 16% said both climate cycles and human activities were at play; and about a third said the temperature rise was the result of natural climate changes.
The last year's steep climb in fuel prices has been painful to most households. Only one in 10 Americans said they had no need to conserve energy or cut spending.
Alston, the San Francisco real estate agent, stopped driving an SUV, and he goes out to dinner less. He said his transportation costs have jumped from $85 to $160 a week.
Alston got rid of his 15-mile-a-gallon Nissan Pathfinder when gas prices approached 3 bucks a gallon. He now ferries clients around in a sedan that gets 30 miles a gallon on the highway and 22 in the city.
"My friends thought I was crazy. I said it was more responsible."
Times Associate Polling Director Jill Darling Richardson contributed to this report.
*
(INFOBOX BELOW)
Green issues
Is the Bush administration doing too much, or too little, or just the right amount to protect the environment?
Too little: 56%
Right amount: 36%
Too much: 3%
Don't know: 5%
Source: Times/Bloomberg poll
----
Environmental matter
Q: When it comes to ensuring a healthy environment for the future, do you think the United States is going in the right direction, or is it seriously off on the wrong track?
All Democrats Independents Republicans Right direction 41% 26% 34% 64% Wrong track 51 68 60 27 Don't know 8 6 6 9
Q: Is the Bush administration doing too much, or too little, or just the right amount to protect the environment?
All Democrats Independents Republicans Too much 3% 3% 4% 4% Too little 56 74 57 30 Right amount 36 20 31 60 Don't know 5 3 8 6
Q: Do you think global warming is a very serious problem, a somewhat serious problem, not too much of a problem or not a problem at all, or haven't you heard enough about this to say?
All Democrats Independents Republicans Very serious 43% 57% 48% 23% Somewhat serious 31 31 33 31 Not too much of a problem 11 4 9 19 Not a problem at all 8 1 5 18 Haven't heard/Don't know 8 7 5 9
Q: Do you think global warming is caused more by human activities, such as driving cars and burning fuel, or is it caused more by natural changes in the climate?
All Democrats Independents Republicans Human activities 47% 57% 51% 36% Natural changes in the climate 32 25 25 45 Both (volunteered) 16 15 18 13 Haven't heard/Don't know 5 3 6 6
Q: What do you think is causing the recent big storms like Katrina and the hotter-than-normal temperatures?
All Democrats Independents Republicans Global warming 36% 50% 32% 23% Natural changes in climate 46 32 51 63 Both (volunteered) 9 9 9 6 Haven't heard/Don't know 9 9 8 8
Q: There is evidence linking higher levels of carbon dioxide to increased global temperature. Do you believe the federal government should do more to address the issue of reducing carbon dioxide emissions, or not?
All Democrats Independents Republicans Government is doing enough 15% 6% 13% 28% Government should do more 78 90 79 64 Don't know 7 4 8 8
---
Full wording of the questions and poll results are available at http://www.latimes.com/timespoll .
How the poll was conducted: The Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll contacted 1,478 adults nationwide by telephone July 28 through Aug. 1. Telephone numbers were chosen from a list of all exchanges in the nation, and random-digit dialing techniques allowed listed and unlisted numbers to be contacted. Multiple attempts were made to contact each number. Results were weighted slightly to conform with their census figures for sex, race, age, education and region. The margin of sampling error for both samples is plus or minus 3 percentage points. For certain subgroups, the error margin may be somewhat higher. Poll results may also be affected by factors such as wording and the order in which questions are presented.
Source: L.A. Times/Bloomberg poll
White House, GOP Leaders Plan All-Out Assault on Federal Protections
Apparently rushing to lock in a long-sought goal before the fall elections, GOP congressional leaders may bring to a vote within weeks a proposal that could literally wipe out any federal program that protects public health or the environment--or for that matter civil rights, poverty programs, auto safety, education, affordable housing, Head Start, workplace safety or any other activity targeted by anti-regulatory forces. With strong support from the Bush White House and the Republican Study Committee, the proposal would create a "sunset commission"--an unelected body with the power to recommend whether a program lives or dies, and then move its recommendations through Congress on a fast-track basis with limited debate and no amendments.Three leading proposals have been introduced and are being winnowed into a final version. They would give the White House some--or total--authority to nominate members to the commission. House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) has confirmed that his office is coordinating development of a final version for prompt floor action.
Sunset commissions have been proposed, and defeated, before. But public interest veterans say the current situation is unlike any in the past, because the House Republican Study Committee, which includes some of the most anti-regulatory members of Congress, has secured guaranteed floor consideration of a sunset bill.
If such a bill should become law, the sunset commission could be packed with industry lobbyists and representatives from industry-funded think tanks, and could conduct its business in secrecy. Two of the sunset proposals under consideration would mandate that programs die after they are reviewed, unless Congress takes action to save them.
Several environmental programs have been targeted during past sunset attempts. Experts predict those would be among the first a sunset commission would review. Among them: the Energy Star Program; federal support for mass transit; the State Energy Program, which supports numerous state and local energy renewable efficiency programs; the Clean School Bus Program; the Land and Water Conservation Fund; federal grants for Wastewater infrastructure; a national children's health study that examines factors leading to such problems as premature birth, autism, obesity, asthma, and exposures to pesticides, mercury and other toxic chemicals.
A coalition of public interest groups is fighting to block enactment of a sunset commission. Information is available through the Sunset Commission Action Center at OMB Watch
< p > < s t r o n g >Back Door Rollback of Federal Whistleblower P rotections
D e p a r t m e n t o f L a b o r S e e k s t o B l o c k F e d e r a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l W h i s t l e B l o w i n g < / s t r o n g >< / p > < p > W a s h i n g t o n , D C . I n a b e h i n d - t h e - s c e n e s m a n e u v e r , t h e U . S . D e p a r t m e n t o f L a b o r i s m o v i n g t o c a n c e l w h i s t l e b l o w e r p r o t e c t i o n s f o r f e d e r a l e m p l o y e e s w h o r e p o r t e n v i r o n m e n t a l p r o b l e m s , a c c o r d i n g t o a n a g e n c y o r d e r r e l e a s e d t o d a y b y P u b l i c E m p l o y e e s f o r E n v i r o n m e n t a l R e s p o n s i b i l i t y ( P E E R ) a n d t h e G o v e r n m e n t A c c o u n t a b i l i t y P r o j e c t ( G A P ) . I f i t s u c c e e d s , t h e L a b o r D e p a r t m e n t w i l l d i s m i s s s c o r e s o f w h i s t l e b l o w e r r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m s f i l e d b y f e d e r a l w o r k e r s w h o r e p o r t e d v i o l a t i o n s u n d e r l a w s s u c h a s t h e C l e a n A i r A c t a n d t h e S a f e D r i n k i n g W a t e r A c t . T h e t w o w h i s t l e b l o w e r p r o t e c t i o n g r o u p s a r e f i l i n g a c o u n t e r l e g a l b r i e f t o d a y i n a n a t t e m p t t o b l o c k t h e m o v e . < / p > < p > A p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 7 0 , 0 0 0 f e d e r a l e m p l o y e e s w o r k i n g w i t h i n e n v i r o n m e n t a l a g e n c i e s w o u l d b e d i r e c t l y a f f e c t e d b y t h e l o s s o f w h i s t l e b l o w e r r i g h t s . T e n s o f t h o u s a n d s o f w o r k e r s i n n o n - e n v i r o n m e n t a l a g e n c i e s , s u c h a s t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f D e f e n s e , b u t w h o r e p o r t p o l l u t i o n v i o l a t i o n s w o u l d a l s o l o s e l e g a l p r o t e c t i o n . < / p > < p > ì F e d e r a l w o r k e r s i n a g e n c i e s s u c h a s t h e E n v i r o n m e n t a l P r o t e c t i o n A g e n c y f u n c t i o n a s t h e p u b l i c í s e y e s a n d e a r s t o s h e d l i g h t o n i m m i n e n t t h r e a t s t o p u b l i c h e a l t h a n d s a f e t y , p a r t i c u l a r l y w h e n a d m i n i s t r a t i o n p o l i t i c s w o r k t o k e e p t h e p u b l i c i n t h e d a r k , î s t a t e d P E E R G e n e r a l C o u n s e l R i c h a r d C o n d i t , n o t i n g t h a t e i g h t m a j o r f e d e r a l e n v i r o n m e n t a l l a w s s a f e g u a r d e m p l o y e e s f o r g o o d f a i t h e f f o r t s t o e n f o r c e o r i m p l e m e n t t h e a n t i - p o l l u t i o n p r o v i s i o n s c o n t a i n e d w i t h i n t h e s e l a w s . ì A t a t i m e w h e n h o n e s t y w i t h i n o u r f e d e r a l a g e n c i e s i s m o r e i m p o r t a n t t h a n e v e r , t h e L a b o r D e p a r t m e n t i s m o v i n g t o s h u t d o w n o n e o f t h e f e w l e g a l a v e n u e s l e f t t o w h i s t l e b l o w e r s . î < / p > < p > T h e L a b o r D e p a r t m e n t s e e k s t o i n v o k e t h e a n c i e n t d o c t r i n e o f s o v e r e i g n i m m u n i t y i n a l l w h i s t l e b l o w e r c a s e s f i l e d b y f e d e r a l w o r k e r s , t h e r e b y f o r e c l o s i n g a n y r e l i e f i n c a s e s o f r e p r i s a l b y f e d e r a l a g e n c i e s . T h i s a c t i o n a r o s e l a s t m o n t h i n a c a s e i n v o l v i n g a n E P A e m p l o y e e n a m e d S h a r y n E r i c k s o n w h o h a s w o n t w o w h i s t l e b l o w e r c a s e s a g a i n s t t h e a g e n c y . A L a b o r D e p a r t m e n t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l a w j u d g e c a l l e d E P A í s c o n d u c t ì r e p r e h e n s i b l e î a n d a w a r d e d E r i c k s o n $ 2 2 5 , 0 0 0 i n p u n i t i v e d a m a g e s f o r r e p o r t i n g p r o b l e m s w i t h a g e n c y c o n t r a c t s f o r t o x i c c l e a n - u p s . < / p > < p > I n a h i g h l y u n u s u a l m o v e , t h e S e c r e t a r y o f L a b o r í s A d m i n i s t r a t i v e R e v i e w B o a r d o n i t s o w n m o t i o n i n v i t e d E P A t o r a i s e a s o v e r e i g n i m m u n i t y d e f e n s e a g a i n s t E r i c k s o n í s a t t e m p t s t o e n f o r c e h e r e a r l i e r l e g a l v i c t o r i e s o v e r t h e a g e n c y . T h i s i n v i t a t i o n c o m e s a f t e r m a n y E P A e m p l o y e e s o v e r t h e p a s t d e c a d e h a v e s u c c e s s f u l l y u s e d t h e w h i s t l e b l o w e r p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e e i g h t m a j o r f e d e r a l e n v i r o n m e n t a l l a w s t o r e v e r s e p o l i t i c a l i n t e r f e r e n c e i n p o l l u t i o n c a s e s . I n v i r t u a l l y a l l t h e s e c a s e s , t h e s o v e r e i g n i m m u n i t y d e f e n s e h a d b e c o m e a d e a d i s s u e . N o w L a b o r S e c r e t a r y E l a i n e C h a o i s s i g n a l i n g t h a t t h i s o b s c u r e , m o r i b u n d l e g a l a r g u m e n t w i l l s u d d e n l y b e l o o k e d u p o n w i t h f a v o r . < / p > < p > ì U n d e r t h i s l a t e s t B u s h a d m i n i s t r a t i o n g a m b i t , f e d e r a l e n v i r o n m e n t a l s p e c i a l i s t s w o u l d n o t b e p r o t e c t e d b y t h e v e r y l a w s t h e y a r e s u p p o s e d t o b e e n f o r c i n g , î s a i d G A P G e n e r a l C o u n s e l J o a n n e R o y c e . ì W e d o n o t w a n t p u b l i c s e r v a n t s w o n d e r i n g w h e t h e r t h e y w i l l l o s e t h e i r j o b s f o r a c t i n g a g a i n s t p o l l u t i o n v i o l a t i o n s o f p o l i t i c a l l y w e l l - c o n n e c t e d i n t e r e s t s . î < / p > < p > I f t h e L a b o r D e p a r t m e n t d o e s o f f i c i a l l y s a n c t i o n t h e s o v e r e i g n i m m u n i t y d e f e n s e a g a i n s t E r i c k s o n í s c l a i m s , t h e c a s e w i l l b e a p p e a l e d t o t h e U . S . C o u r t o f A p p e a l s f o r t h e 1 1 t h C i r c u i t b a s e d i n A t l a n t a . I n t h e i n t e r i m , h o w e v e r , s c o r e s o f f e d e r a l e m p l o y e e w h i s t l e b l o w e r c a s e s m a y b e d i s m i s s e d o r l a n g u i s h i n l i m b o . < / p >
Join the campaign to "Exxpose Exxon"
When George Bush's advisor on environmental policy was caught censoring scientific documents showing evidence of global warming, he "resigned" and immediately went to work for ExxonMobil -- a company that has spent $15 million since 1998 funding organizations that pedal junk science in order to block action to combat global warming.
We are all too familiar with the Bush administration's stubborn insistence on despoiling America's last pristine wilderness area by opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. But did you know that ExxonMobil, working through the lobbying group Arctic Power, is the only major oil company that has continued to openly lobby for drilling the refuge. All the other major oil companies -- BP, ConocoPhillips and ChevronTexaco -- dropped out of Arctic Power after shareholder resolutions and grassroots activists called for their withdrawal.
It's not really a coincidence that the policies of the Bush administration mirror that of the largest oil company in the world. For too long, ExxonMobil has hid in the shadows of this administration, pulling the levers of power to advance its drill-and-pollute strategy that keeps America dependent on oil.
It's time we pulled back the curtain and exposed ExxonMobil for standing in the way of progress. That's why NRDC has joined a coalition of America's largest public interest and environmental groups in a campaign to "Exxpose Exxon" for its anti-environment behavior.
America has the know-how to dramatically reduce our oil dependence, combat global warming and protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It's time the public sent ExxonMobil a clear message to look beyond its profit reports to the future and become part of the clean energy solution.
== What to do ==
Send a message to Lee Raymond, chair and CEO of ExxonMobil, pledging to drive past Exxon and Mobil gas stations and to not buy ExxonMobil products until the company demonstrates progress toward clean energy solutions.
== Additional information ==
Coalition Launches Landmark Campaign http://www.nrdc.org/media/pressreleases/050712.asp
== Contact information ==
You can contact Mr. Raymond directly from NRDC's Earth Action Center at http://www.nrdc.org/action/. Or use the contact information and sample letter below to send your own message.
Lee R. Raymond, CEO
Exxon Mobil Corporation
5959 Las Colinas Boulevard
Irving, Texas 75039-2298
Email: lee.r.raymond@exxonmobil.com
== Sample letter ==
Subject: Switch to clean energy solutions
Dear Mr. Raymond:
I am deeply concerned about America's dependence on oil. In an age of terrorism and record world energy consumption, our addiction to oil jeopardizes our national security, hurts consumers and threatens our environment. Our oil dependence represents a failed energy strategy, one that your company not only supports but has helped develop.
I am especially disturbed by ExxonMobil's active support of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and efforts to block meaningful action to cut global warming pollution, including your funding of junk science to hide the real facts about global warming. I'm also troubled by your company's decision to forgo investment in clean energy solutions -- despite your record profits at a time of rising gasoline prices -- and your failure to pay all of the punitive damages awarded to fishermen and others injured by the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill.
ExxonMobil currently represents yesterday's energy policy; I would rather spend my money and time moving forward, not backward. I therefore will not purchase ExxonMobil gas or products until the company demonstrates that it is part of a clean energy future.
Sincerely,
[Your name and address]
Bill Moyers: There is no tomorrow
Bill Moyers
Published January 30, 2005
One of the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in Washington.
Theology asserts propositions that cannot be proven true; ideologues hold stoutly to a worldview despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality. When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad but they are always blind. And there is the danger: voters and politicians alike, oblivious to the facts.
Remember James Watt, President Ronald Reagan's first secretary of the interior? My favorite online environmental journal, the ever-engaging Grist, reminded us recently of how James Watt told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, "after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back."
Beltway elites snickered. The press corps didn't know what he was talking about. But James Watt was serious. So were his compatriots out across the country. They are the people who believe the Bible is literally true -- one-third of the American electorate, if a recent Gallup poll is accurate. In this past election several million good and decent citizens went to the polls believing in the rapture index.
That's right -- the rapture index. Google it and you will find that the best-selling books in America today are the 12 volumes of the "Left Behind" series written by the Christian fundamentalist and religious-right warrior Timothy LaHaye. These true believers subscribe to a fantastical theology concocted in the 19th century by a couple of immigrant preachers who took disparate passages from the Bible and wove them into a narrative that has captivated the imagination of millions of Americans.
Its outline is rather simple, if bizarre (the British writer George Monbiot recently did a brilliant dissection of it and I am indebted to him for adding to my own understanding): Once Israel has occupied the rest of its "biblical lands," legions of the antichrist will attack it, triggering a final showdown in the valley of Armageddon.
As the Jews who have not been converted are burned, the messiah will return for the rapture. True believers will be lifted out of their clothes and transported to Heaven, where, seated next to the right hand of God, they will watch their political and religious opponents suffer plagues of boils, sores, locusts and frogs during the several years of tribulation that follow.
I'm not making this up. Like Monbiot, I've read the literature. I've reported on these people, following some of them from Texas to the West Bank. They are sincere, serious and polite as they tell you they feel called to help bring the rapture on as fulfillment of biblical prophecy. That's why they have declared solidarity with Israel and the Jewish settlements and backed up their support with money and volunteers. It's why the invasion of Iraq for them was a warm-up act, predicted in the Book of Revelations where four angels "which are bound in the great river Euphrates will be released to slay the third part of man." A war with Islam in the Middle East is not something to be feared but welcomed -- an essential conflagration on the road to redemption. The last time I Googled it, the rapture index stood at 144 -- just one point below the critical threshold when the whole thing will blow, the son of God will return, the righteous will enter Heaven and sinners will be condemned to eternal hellfire.
So what does this mean for public policy and the environment? Go to Grist to read a remarkable work of reporting by the journalist Glenn Scherer -- "The Road to Environmental Apocalypse." Read it and you will see how millions of Christian fundamentalists may believe that environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually welcomed -- even hastened -- as a sign of the coming apocalypse.
As Grist makes clear, we're not talking about a handful of fringe lawmakers who hold or are beholden to these beliefs. Nearly half the U.S. Congress before the recent election -- 231 legislators in total and more since the election -- are backed by the religious right.
Forty-five senators and 186 members of the 108th Congress earned 80 to 100 percent approval ratings from the three most influential Christian right advocacy groups. They include Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Assistant Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Conference Chair Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Policy Chair Jon Kyl of Arizona, House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Majority Whip Roy Blunt. The only Democrat to score 100 percent with the Christian coalition was Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia, who recently quoted from the biblical book of Amos on the Senate floor: "The days will come, sayeth the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land." He seemed to be relishing the thought.
And why not? There's a constituency for it. A 2002 Time-CNN poll found that 59 percent of Americans believe that the prophecies found in the book of Revelations are going to come true. Nearly one-quarter think the Bible predicted the 9/11 attacks. Drive across the country with your radio tuned to the more than 1,600 Christian radio stations, or in the motel turn on some of the 250 Christian TV stations, and you can hear some of this end-time gospel. And you will come to understand why people under the spell of such potent prophecies cannot be expected, as Grist puts it, "to worry about the environment. Why care about the earth, when the droughts, floods, famine and pestilence brought by ecological collapse are signs of the apocalypse foretold in the Bible? Why care about global climate change when you and yours will be rescued in the rapture? And why care about converting from oil to solar when the same God who performed the miracle of the loaves and fishes can whip up a few billion barrels of light crude with a word?"
Because these people believe that until Christ does return, the Lord will provide. One of their texts is a high school history book, "America's Providential History." You'll find there these words: "The secular or socialist has a limited-resource mentality and views the world as a pie ... that needs to be cut up so everyone can get a piece." However, "[t]he Christian knows that the potential in God is unlimited and that there is no shortage of resources in God's earth ... while many secularists view the world as overpopulated, Christians know that God has made the earth sufficiently large with plenty of resources to accommodate all of the people."
No wonder Karl Rove goes around the White House whistling that militant hymn, "Onward Christian Soldiers." He turned out millions of the foot soldiers on Nov. 2, including many who have made the apocalypse a powerful driving force in modern American politics.
It is hard for the journalist to report a story like this with any credibility. So let me put it on a personal level. I myself don't know how to be in this world without expecting a confident future and getting up every morning to do what I can to bring it about. So I have always been an optimist. Now, however, I think of my friend on Wall Street whom I once asked: "What do you think of the market?"I'm optimistic," he answered. "Then why do you look so worried?" And he answered: "Because I am not sure my optimism is justified."
I'm not, either. Once upon a time I agreed with Eric Chivian and the Center for Health and the Global Environment that people will protect the natural environment when they realize its importance to their health and to the health and lives of their children. Now I am not so sure. It's not that I don't want to believe that -- it's just that I read the news and connect the dots.
I read that the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has declared the election a mandate for President Bush on the environment. This for an administration:
€ That wants to rewrite the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act protecting rare plant and animal species and their habitats, as well as the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires the government to judge beforehand whether actions might damage natural resources.
€ That wants to relax pollution limits for ozone; eliminate vehicle tailpipe inspections, and ease pollution standards for cars, sport-utility vehicles and diesel-powered big trucks and heavy equipment.
€ That wants a new international audit law to allow corporations to keep certain information about environmental problems secret from the public.
€ That wants to drop all its new-source review suits against polluting, coal-fired power plants and weaken consent decrees reached earlier with coal companies.
€ That wants to open the Arctic [National] Wildlife Refuge to drilling and increase drilling in Padre Island National Seashore, the longest stretch of undeveloped barrier island in the world and the last great coastal wild land in America.
I read the news just this week and learned how the Environmental Protection Agency had planned to spend $9 million -- $2 million of it from the administration's friends at the American Chemistry Council -- to pay poor families to continue to use pesticides in their homes. These pesticides have been linked to neurological damage in children, but instead of ordering an end to their use, the government and the industry were going to offer the families $970 each, as well as a camcorder and children's clothing, to serve as guinea pigs for the study.
I read all this in the news.
I read the news just last night and learned that the administration's friends at the International Policy Network, which is supported by Exxon Mobil and others of like mind, have issued a new report that climate change is "a myth, sea levels are not rising" [and] scientists who believe catastrophe is possible are "an embarrassment."
I not only read the news but the fine print of the recent appropriations bill passed by Congress, with the obscure (and obscene) riders attached to it: a clause removing all endangered species protections from pesticides; language prohibiting judicial review for a forest in Oregon; a waiver of environmental review for grazing permits on public lands; a rider pressed by developers to weaken protection for crucial habitats in California.
I read all this and look up at the pictures on my desk, next to the computer -- pictures of my grandchildren. I see the future looking back at me from those photographs and I say, "Father, forgive us, for we know not what we do." And then I am stopped short by the thought: "That's not right. We do know what we are doing. We are stealing their future. Betraying their trust. Despoiling their world."
And I ask myself: Why? Is it because we don't care? Because we are greedy? Because we have lost our capacity for outrage, our ability to sustain indignation at injustice?
What has happened to our moral imagination?
On the heath Lear asks Gloucester: "How do you see the world?" And Gloucester, who is blind, answers: "I see it feelingly.'"
I see it feelingly.
The news is not good these days. I can tell you, though, that as a journalist I know the news is never the end of the story. The news can be the truth that sets us free -- not only to feel but to fight for the future we want. And the will to fight is the antidote to despair, the cure for cynicism, and the answer to those faces looking back at me from those photographs on my desk. What we need is what the ancient Israelites called hochma -- the science of the heart ... the capacity to see, to feel and then to act as if the future depended on you.
Believe me, it does.
Bill Moyers was host until recently of the weekly public affairs series "NOW with Bill Moyers" on PBS. This article is adapted from AlterNet, where it first appeared. The text is taken from Moyers' remarks upon receiving the Global Environmental Citizen Award from the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School.
© Copyright 2005 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Democratic Convention 2004
Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - Speech Transcript
In 20 years as an environmental advocate, I've been disciplined about being non-partisan in my approach to the environment. If you talk to the CEOs of almost any environmental organization, they'll say that the worst thing that could happen to the environment would be if it became a partisan issue, the province of a single political party. Five years ago, if you asked experts what they thought was the gravest threat to our environment, they'd mention a whole range of issues, from over-population to global warming, to toxins in our food and air. But today, they'll give you just one answer: It's George W. Bush.
You simply cannot talk honestly about the environment today without speaking critically about this administration. This administration has promoted 400 major rollbacks that threaten to eviscerate 30 years of environmental progress. They've put polluters in charge of the very agencies that are supposed to regulate them. The second in command of the EPA is a former Monsanto lobbyist. The second in command of the Forest Service is a former timber industry lobbyist.
This administration says that we have to choose between environmental protection on one hand and economic prosperity on the other. But that is a false choice. Good environmental policy and good economic policy are identical. If we treat this earth as a business, converting our natural resources to cash as fast as possible, we might have a few years of pollution-based prosperity. But our children would have to pay for it - pay for it with a barren landscape, poor health, and astronomical clean up costs.
Environmental injury is deficit spending putting the cost of our generation's prosperity on the backs of our children. This entire Administration is about deficit spending. They've squandered a $5 trillion surplus. And they've squandered the goodwill of the world.
When I was a little boy, I went to Europe with my uncle and my father. Thousands of people came out to welcome us. They were proud to name their streets after American presidents such as Teddy Roosevelt and JFK. But in just three and half years, the international goodwill that took America more than 200 years to earn has been squandered.
John Kerry understands that we've got to protect our environment not just for the sake of the fishes and the birds, but for our own sake. John Kerry understands that we've got to protect our environment because it enriches us not just economically, but historically, culturally and spiritually.
When we destroy nature, we diminish ourselves. John Kerry understands that.
And that's why we need to join John Kerry in protecting our environment in standing up to polluters, preserving our environmental monuments, and keeping our air and water safe for our children.
George W. Bush
Resume
Past work experience:
I ran for congress and lost.
I produced a Hollywood slasher B movie.
I bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas; company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.
I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using taxpayer money. Biggest move: Traded Sammy Sosa to the Chicago White Sox.
With my father's help (and his name) was elected Governor of Texas.
Accomplishments:
I changed pollution laws for power and oil companies and made Texas the most polluted state in the Union.
I replaced Los Angeles with Houston as the most smog ridden city in America. Cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas government to the tune of billions in borrowed money. Set record for most executions by any Governor in American history.
I became president after losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes, with the help of my fathers appointments to the Supreme Court.
Accomplishments as president:
I attacked and took over two countries.
I spent the surplus and bankrupted the treasury.
I shattered record for biggest annual deficit in history.
I set economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period.
I set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market.
I am the first president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.
I am the first president in US history to enter office with a criminal record.
I am the first year in office set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history.
After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, I presided over the worst security failure in US history.
I set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips than any other president in US history.
In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their job.
I cut unemployment benefits for more out of work Americans than any president in US history.
I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.
I appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history.
I set the record for the least amount of press conferences than any president since the advent of television.
I signed more laws and executive orders amending the Constitution than any president in US history.
I presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.
I presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history and refused to use the national reserves as past presidents have.
I cut healthcare benefits for war veterans.
I set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.(http://www.hyperreal.org/~dana/marches/)
I dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history.
My presidency is the most secretive and un-accountable of any in US history.
Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US history. (The 'poorest' multi-millionaire, Condoleeza Rice has a Chevron oil tanker named after her).
I am the first president in US history to have all 50 states of the Union simultaneously go bankrupt.
I presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market in any country in the history of the world.
I am the first president in US history to order a US attack and military occupation of a sovereign nation.
I created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States.
I set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any president in US history.
I am the first president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the human rights commission.
I am the first president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the elections monitoring board.
I removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of congressional oversight than any presidential administration in US history.
I rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.
I withdrew from the World Court of Law.
I refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.
I am the first president in US history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 US elections).
I am the all-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations.
My biggest lifetime campaign contributor, who is also one of my best friends, presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation).
I spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US history.
I am the first president in US history to unilaterally attack a sovereign nation against the will of the United Nations and the world community.
I am the first president to run and hide when the US came under attack (and then lied saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1)
I am the first US president to establish a secret shadow government.
I took the biggest world sympathy for the US after 911, and in less than a year made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history).
I, with a policy of 'dis-engagement,' created the most hostile Israeli-Palestine relations in at least 30 years.
I am the first US president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability.
I am the first US president in history to have the people of South Korea more threatened by the US than their immediate neighbor, North Korea.
I changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.
I set all-time record for number of administration appointees who violated US law by not selling huge investments in corporations bidding for government contracts.
I failed to fulfill my pledge to get Osama Bin Laden 'dead or alive'.
I failed to capture the anthrax killer who tried to murder the leaders of our country at the United States Capitol building. After 18 months I have no leads and zero suspects.
In the 18 months following the 9/11 attacks I have successfully prevented any public investigation into the biggest security failure in the history of the United States.
I removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US history.
In a little over two years, I created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided the US has ever been since the civil war.
I entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.
Records and References:
I have at least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine (Texas driving record has been erased and is not available).
I was AWOL from National Guard and deserted the military during a time of war.
I refused to take drug test or even answer any questions about drug use.
All records of my tenure as governor of Texas have been spirited away to my fathers library, sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.
All records of any SEC investigations into my insider trading or bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.
All minutes of meetings for any public corporation I served on the board are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.
Any records or minutes from meetings I (or my VP) attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public review.
For personal references please speak to my daddy or uncle James Baker (They can be reached at their offices of the Carlyle Group for war-profiteering.)
Editorial
April 21, 2003
The War at Home
While President Bush pursues the fight against terrorism and the military effort in Iraq, he's also staging a new battle on the home front for his domestic programs. Last week he began by stumping the country for his tax cut plan, a cornerstone of his presidential ambitions. Mr. Bush's successful prosecution of the war in Iraq does not mean that Americans must now fall in line behind his misguided domestic agenda. On almost every front, it is a disaster, a national train wreck that must be headed off for the country's well-being.From the beginning, the key to Mr. Bush's domestic vision has been massive tax cuts, which Republican ideologues see both as a reward to the well-heeled, and a key to starving the government of money that might be spent on programs like health care or housing. Conservatives once viewed deficits as the height of bad fiscal policy. Now, they embrace them. There is no danger that a government swimming in red ink will come up with new programs to protect the environment, to extend health care for the poor or provide affordable housing to the homeless. No matter how much the president says he wants to improve education, the deficit is an all-purpose excuse to avoid helping public school districts overcome crippling cuts imposed by local governments that are teetering on insolvency.
The tax cuts are also meant to give Mr. Bush the appearance of fighting to improve the economy. But if the pain of millions of newly unemployed workers was the real point, Mr. Bush would have paid at least some attention to a recent report by the Republicans' hand-picked head of the Congressional Budget Office. Using the administration's own tax-cut-friendly method of analysis, he concluded that further tax reductions would have no notable impact on the economy. Yet, the president presses on for another $550 billion in cuts over 10 years.
The tax cuts are not the White House's only goal. The nation learned shortly after Mr. Bush's inauguration that he was not going to govern from the center, as many had assumed given the election results. Instead, he has permitted his far-right base to take over vast swaths of domestic policy making. What the public has not noticed is how far that effort has already succeeded. Using low-profile executive actions and administrative changes, Mr. Bush has quietly accomplished what he wants behind the scenes. The Department of Housing and Urban Development, for instance, recently announced plans to allow public funds to be used to help build churches, as long as part of the building is used to provide social services. That was one of the administration's multiple attempts to blur the line between church and state. As the Senate amended the "faith-based initiative" to try to keep that separation clear, administration aides were assuring reporters that what went out in the legislature was being reinstated through executive order.
Drawing precisely the wrong lesson from history, the Bush administration has slashed away at core constitutional protections in the name of fighting terrorism. The Justice Department claims the power to hold American citizens in prison indefinitely without access to lawyers simply because they have been labeled "enemy combatants." Terrorism suspects have been held in secret detention, their hearings closed to the public. Meanwhile, members of Congress who try to question Attorney General John Ashcroft about such policies are either ignored or accused of aiding the enemy.
In the area of the environment Mr. Bush is still struggling to get his energy bill through Congress, with the famous provision opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil exploration. But the president has been much more efficient outside the Capitol, using executive fiat to ease protection of the national forests and public lands to accelerate commercial logging and oil and gas exploration. Meanwhile, his administration sat on the sidelines while industrial groups challenged some of the most useful environmental initiatives of the Clinton administration in court, including the prohibition of commercial activity in 60 million roadless acres of the national forests.
Turning the federal courts into places unfriendly to environmentalists, civil rights advocates, corporate whistle-blowers and anyone else who attempts to do battle against the interests of big business is another part of the president's domestic battle plan. There are plenty of qualified moderate judges who have a record of deciding cases on the merits. But Mr. Bush seems intent on promoting nominees with a background of knee-jerk right-wing ideology and cramming them down the country's throat. He has pushed nominees who reflexively rule against people seeking protection under antidiscrimination law, or workers attempting to sue their employers. Another nominee has compared abortion to the Holocaust. Democrats who oppose them are labeled as obstructionists.
The one key credential linking all the Bush nominees to the federal bench has been a strong record in opposition to abortion. While as a candidate Mr. Bush barely mentioned abortion, opposition to reproductive rights has been one of the strongest underlying themes of his presidency. Even the much-touted AIDS money for Africa is caught up in the far right's opposition to effective birth control and AIDS prevention strategies.
€ The president makes a good political general. One of his canniest strategies has been to raise the bar so high that even the smallest of compromises seems like moderation. ANWR has become the red herring of the environmental wars; any energy bill that protects the caribou from the oil drillers will be seen as a victory even if it contains ridiculous tax breaks for the coal, oil and gas industries and does nothing to deal with the problem of gas-guzzling automobiles. Somehow, a budget with $350 billion in tax cuts ‹ at a time of war and enormous government deficits ‹ has come to be seen as a great victory for the president's opponents. With defeats like this, Mr. Bush never needs to win.
Mr. Bush's willingness to take big gambles, to push for what he wants no matter the consequences, are likely to leave an imprint on America far beyond his tenure in office. We hope that he's successful in the fight against terrorism, and that he brings about a more stable Mideast and a democratic Iraq. But on the domestic front, almost every success cripples the nation's ability to move toward a happy, prosperous future. This is one war we hope he loses.
Protecting the Environment
Environmentalism in crisis
Michael Graf
Friday, January 10, 2003
©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback
These are rough times for environmentalists. Terrorism and the possibility of war in the Middle East have grabbed the public's attention. The White House is occupied by the most anti-environmental administration in recent memory and there is the real possibility, with the new Republican majority in Congress, that major anti-environmental initiatives will be passed into law. In today's Washington, the entire concept of environmental regulation is no longer vogue.
The general public, which ostensibly favors environmental protection, should be outraged, but apparently is not, at least not according to the latest election results. America has come full circle from when the government did not regulate the environmental impacts of our activities, as chronicled by Rachel Carson in "Silent Spring," to today when one needs a permit for everything from subdividing land to trimming a tree. We have rescued the bald eagle from extinction and cleaned the sewage that once polluted our rivers. In short, we've made some progress. Has the environmental "movement" simply run its course?
The complex science of today's environmental issues can make this question difficult to answer. What are the long-term impacts of climate change? Phrases used in assessing the risk of toxic exposure, such as "chronic no observed effect level," mean little to the public. Industry exploits this murkiness by broadcasting a simpler and easier-to-digest message that companies "care" about the environment but that more study is needed before we take any "rash" action. In the ambiguity, the public is easily distracted by more straightforward and exciting issues, such as whether or not to drop bombs on Iraq.
An even bigger problem for environmentalists is their failure to define themselves. What does it mean, exactly, to be an environmentalist? The marketing engine of corporate America paints a tempting vision of "nature" as either resources to exploit or a recreational playground in which the Hummer 2 is as much a part of the natural landscape as the barrel cactus. Environmentalists have not presented an equally compelling vision that takes into account the reality that we, like any species, are constrained by the ecological limits of the Earth.
Environmentalists have been wary of directly confronting the anti- environmental values of a consumer society. For example, in his 1990 book, "Earth in the Balance," Al Gore described our modern civilization as "dysfunctional" yet never mentioned the issue or the book on the 2000 campaign trail. Environmental groups can typically make more short-term progress by focusing on specific issues rather than preaching a vision of future society.
In the price-driven marketplace, it is unlikely that environmental values, such as the ability to drink water from a stream or know that the migrating geese will return year after year, will survive in the long term. Indeed, our interaction with the world around us is already moving toward artifice, from the onslaught of virtual reality to mechanized "wilderness" interpreted by a speaker at the front of a tour bus. Environmentalists have reason to fear the replacement of the natural by the virtual since, over time, fewer and fewer people will be able to tell the difference, much less be motivated to act.
At this time, environmentalists have not crafted a coherent vision that can compete with that of industrial society. Maybe now is the time to do so. It may be tough in the short term, but a movement has to start somewhere.
Michael Graf is an environmental attorney in San Francisco.
It's the environment, stupid
Ruth Rosen
Thursday, December 5, 2002
©2002 San Francisco Chronicle.
SOMEDAY, PEOPLE will look back at President Bush's environmental record and shake their heads in disbelief. This administration has waged a relentless war against environmental protections supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Maybe folks don't worry all that much about shrinking glaciers. And perhaps we can't follow debates about arcane EPA regulations. But in every poll, Americans reveal how strongly we desire clean air and water, oppose oil drilling and treasure pristine wilderness. If Democrats want to stand for something and attract all kinds of voters, they should make the defense of the environment one of their guiding principles.
They might start with our national parks. Despite a deluge of protest from the public, the Interior Department has decided to permit snowmobiles in Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks. (But it banned off-road vehicles in Florida's national parks, where brother Jeb Bush, next in the dynastic line, governs.)
The Clinton presidency left quite a different legacy, which, on a recent visit to the Southwest, I had a chance to observe up close.
The first thing I noticed in Zion National Park -- aside from the soaring walls of magenta sandstone -- is how well the National Park Service has reduced congestion and pollution. As recently as 1999, long lines of cars choked the tiny town of Springdale, Utah, right outside the park. Inside Zion, cars used to squeeze through the narrow canyon, spewing a haze of pollution into the air and filling the cathedral-like walls with sounds of idling motors and impatient honking.
No more. Gone are the cars -- their noise, pollution and traffic jams. In their place are clean, free shuttle buses that stop every few minutes in Springdale and bring you to the visitors' center. From there, propane-fueled shuttle buses carry you through the canyon, dropping off enthusiastic sightseers and picking up exhausted hikers.
In Bryce Canyon National Park, I discovered yet another oasis of sanity. Instead of driving your own car, you take shuttle buses to any of the vista points that look down on the park's famous cylindrical spires, carved from the rock by erosion and tinted with colors too subtle to name.
The park service has even tamed the congestion and pollution that has ruined many a visit to the Grand Canyon. Today, the best way to visit the canyon's South Rim is to arrive, park your car, and then just hop on one of the frequent shuttles that circle the village and carry visitors to the lodges, restaurants and laundries.
The park service has mercifully banished cars along the South Rim road as well. If you want to enjoy the great chasm's scenic grandeur or hike the trails that meander below the South Rim, you simply take one of the frequent buses that stop at each vista point and trailhead.
On one hike through a dense forest, I sat on a rock and could actually hear the distant roar of the rapids of the Colorado River. In splendid silence, I gazed at migrating hawks and watched the changing play of light and shadows as the sun moved across the endless sky.
I've only visited a handful of the national parks, but these recent changes, begun during the Clinton years, reveal how well the National Park Service has learned to balance the preservation of our nation's natural wonders with public access.
Democrats should wake up and realize that the public's desire for environmental protections transcends ideological and political allegiances.
Snowmobiles in the Yellowstone and Grand Teton parks? Future generations will be flabbergasted. I already am.
E-mail Ruth Rosen at rrosen@sfchronicle.com
Latest example of Bush-think
The judge ordered the Defense Department to stop the bombing until it came into compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. During the case, a Bush Administration government lawyer argued that bird lovers benefit when the military kills birds because "bird watchers get more enjoyment spotting a rare bird than they do spotting a common one."
Judge Emmet G. Sullivan reprimanded the government for that argument. "There is absolutely no support in the law for the view that environmentalists should get enjoyment out of the destruction of natural resources," he said.
