Fw: Bush Moves on Environment Disappoint Industry

[Chris Kromm]

> > March 11, 2001
> > Bush's Moves on Environment Disappoint Industry
> > By DOUGLAS JEHL
> > New York Times
> >
> > WASHINGTON, March 10 - While environmentalists have sounded an anxious
> > alarm over President Bush's agenda, it is his allies in industry who are
> > expressing concern that his administration is falling short of their
> > expectations.
> >
> > Several surprising first moves, particularly on clean air, have put
> > environmental organizations in the unexpected role of offering guarded
> > praise for an administration they fought hard to defeat. The industry
> > representatives, who see themselves as early losers, have circulated a
> view
> > that Mr. Bush's presidency might not be as much of a departure from his
> > predecessor's as hoped.
> >
> > Beginning with word of a decision not to try to overturn President Bill
> > Clinton's declaration of nearly two dozen national monuments, the new
> > administration has gone on to uphold a Clinton-backed plan to rein in
> > diesel emissions and signaled support for a plan to begin regulating
> carbon
> > dioxide emissions to combat global warming - steps seen as anathema by
oil
> > and mining interests.
> >
> > "It may be just too early to tell, but we're not seeing a difference of
> > philosophy from the Clinton days," said a leading industry lobbyist who
> > insisted that neither his name nor that of his organization be
published.
> > "If their goal is to keep on sticking it in the eye of business, they've
> > done a good job."
> >
> > Each side said it suspected that the timing and substance of the
> > administration's initial steps might have been motivated by a desire to
be
> > seen early on as a friend of the environment. Certainly, the careful way
> in
> > which the Bush allies have begun to register their discontent - almost
> > always under the cover of anonymity - has served to give voice to
> > criticisms while reinforcing the politically useful impression that the
> > White House might not be as bad as the environmentalists made out.
> >
> > It is nonetheless striking, each sidesays, that business interests seem
to
> > have lost out to environmental ones in most early big decisions,
> > particularly when the administration has been sounding a distinctly
> > conservative note on other issues, like tax cuts and labor.
> >
> > "There have been some encouraging signs," said Gregory Wetstone, program
> > director of the Natural Resources Defense Council, which fought hard in
> the
> > unsuccessful effort to block the nomination of Gale A. Norton as
interior
> > secretary.
> >
> > Perhaps the most unexpected overture from the new administration to the
> > environmentalists has come in signs that it may be prepared to embrace a
> > stance on global warming not too far from the one Al Gore championed in
> the
> > presidential campaign. Christie Whitman, the administrator of the
> > Environmental Protection Agency, has said that the administration was
> > sufficiently concerned about the problem that it might regulate
emissions
> > of carbon dioxide. That stance was attacked last week in an article on
the
> > editorial page of The Wall Street Journal (another target was Treasury
> > Secretary Paul H. O'Neill, who has expressed concern about global
warming)
> > and has prompted loud protests from industry representatives.
> >
> > "They don't want to do anything that will set the environmentalists
off,"
> > John Grasser, a spokesman for the National Mining Association, said of
the
> > administration's tentative embrace of a plan that the energy industry
has
> > long said would amount to a new tax on fossil fuels. "We've got to talk
to
> > the Bush administration and let them know that the political wind blows
> our
> > way, too."
> >
> > The real test, each side says, will be the battle over Mr. Bush's plan
to
> > open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration.
Environmental
> > groups have highlighted the issue in appeals that leaders say have paid
> > dividends in increased membership and fund-raising.
> >
> > Business groups expect the Bush administration to stand firm on Arctic
> > drilling, and they are counting on the White House to try to reverse or
> > scale back regulations that in many cases were imposed in the last days
of
> > the Clinton presidency.
> >
> > Some Bush allies say any complaining is overwrought.
> >
> > "I think it's premature to start talking in terms of wins and losses,"
> > Representative James V. Hansen, the Utah Republican who is chairman of
the
> > House Resources Committee, said today. "I'd tell these people to keep
> their
> > powder dry. Most of the administrative offices don't even have their
> staffs
> > put together yet."
> >
> > Among major rulings still being reviewed by the White House six weeks
into
> > Mr. Bush's term is one that would permanently ban road building on about
> 60
> > million acres of national forest land, a move supported by
> > environmentalists as a barrier to development of about one-third of
forest
> > land. Industry groups, including snowmobile dealers and mining
> > conglomerates, and officials in Western states oppose the ban, saying it
> > will unfairly curb their activities.
> >
> > Another ruling would drastically lower the limit for arsenic in drinking
> > water, a move opposed by the mining industry, which said it would add
> > significantly to their costs.
> >
> > A third, part of a legal settlement approved on Mr. Clinton's last day
in
> > office, would require the Environmental Protection Agency to set new
> > standards for pesticide use that would take into account any health
risks
> > to children. The agriculture industry and pesticide manufacturers have
> > complained that their views were ignored in the decision.
> >
> > On these issues and others, Republicans in Congress have made tentative
> > moves toward overturning the rules, even as they wait for the White
House
> > to make its position clear.
> >
> > But the first sign of the Bush administration's intentions is more
likely
> > to emerge in the courts, as the Justice Department must decide beginning
> > this week whether to defend the Clinton administration's positions
against
> > what have become a number of challenges by business groups and states.
> >
> > On Mr. Bush's first full day in office, his chief of staff, Andrew H.
Card
> > Jr., issued a memorandum imposing a 60-day moratorium on Clinton
> > administration rules that had not yet taken effect, prompting hopes from
> > their foes that Mr. Bush planned to reverse them.
> >
> > But so far, the only rules on which the new administration has announced
a
> > decision have been limits on diesel emissions and the new national
> > monuments, both of which have strong public support. Some people who
have
> > close ties to the new administration said that the White House might
have
> > concluded it would be a mistake to pick too many fights. And in the case
> of
> > the monuments, Ms. Norton, the interior secretary, has broad discretion
> > over how they are administered.
> >
> > "I think what we have in the administration is a bunch of thoughtful
> people
> > trying to make good decisions, and that doesn't mean taking on
willy-nilly
> > a bunch of environmental regulations in ways that wouldn't be
responsible
> > policy and wouldn't be politically responsible," said Doug Crandall, a
top
> > Republican aide to the House Resources Committee.
> >
> > In its few staff and budget decisions in environmental matters, the new
> > administration seems to have tried to bow to conservatives and business
> > interests. As Ms. Norton's top deputy at the Interior Department, the
> White
> > House on Thursday said it would nominate J. Steven Griles, an assistant
> > interior secretary under President Ronald Reagan who now works as a
> > lobbyist for the mining industry.
> >
> > Among those passed over for the post was John Turner, a director of the
> > federal Fish and Wildlife Service in President Bush's father's
> > administration. As the head of the Conservation Fund, an environmental
> > organization, he has a reputation as a moderate and was reportedly
> > recommended by Vice President Dick Cheney. Administration officials said
> > Mr. Turner lost out in large part because conservative property rights
> > advocates tarred him as being too closely aligned with environmental
> > interests.
> >
> > Mr. Bush's new budget calls for cuts of 4 percent or more at the
Interior
> > and Agriculture Departments and the Environmental Protection Agency, the
> > main agencies with environmental responsibilities. In his budget address
> to
> > Congress, Mr. Bush heaped attention on the $4.9 billion he is seeking
for
> > the national parks. Critics said that too much of the money, to be spent
> > over five years, would go for road building and tourist buildings, and
too
> > little to preservation and research.
> >
> > The decision to let stand the limits on diesel emissions might also have
> > been timed to divert attention from the budget cuts. Although it was
> > announced by Mrs. Whitman, the decision had been directed in large part
by
> > top aides to Mr. Bush, administration officials said today. They said
oil
> > industry warnings that the strict new emissions standards could lead to
> > fuel shortages had been outweighed by the health-based arguments made by
> > the rule's proponents, which included the automobile industry as well as
> > environmental groups, and by evidence of broad popular support for the
> > regulation.
> >
> > When she announced the administration's decision to retain the monument
> > designations, Ms. Norton made clear that the new administration would be
> > open to plans that might shrink their boundaries or allow more
commercial
> > and recreational use.
> >
> > But some in the oil industry in particular still saw the announcement as
a
> > bad sign, mostly because Ms. Norton did not voice a specific commitment
to
> > keeping the new lands open to energy exploration.
> >
> > Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company
> >
> >
>