Comparing the Candidates: The Environment

"The Environment" is often discussed as an abstract political issue, but Bush or Kerry through their cabinet appointments and regulations will make decisions that affect practical, everyday things such as the air we breathe and the water we drink.

We must carefully weigh the last four years of Republican control against Democrats’ proposals for the next four. The two major parties have differing philosophies and policies on the environment, so it is important to know the details and decide where you stand.

Considering the past

Generally speaking, the Republican Party wants to let the market determine various economic issues, including environmental issues. The Bush administration tends to be opposed to environmental regulations that it feels will inhibit business growth.

For example, the Republican Congress and the Bush administration have been opposed to reinstating the Superfund program, a tax on chemical manufacturers that pays for the clean up of toxic waste sites. Congress created Superfund in 1980, and the program expired in 1995, at a high of $3.6 billion dollars. Today, the fund is depleted and the Bush administration is opposed to reinstating it in its previous "polluter pays" form.

Instead, the administration supports a Superfund program that would be supported by the taxpayers.

The question is, who should pay for environmental cleanup? Should it be the taxpayers or the companies that created the toxic mess? The answer seems obvious, but the Bush administration is opposed to taxing chemical manufacturers millions of dollars for cleanup. Why?

Clean up tax - problem or solution?

The current Republican party ("current" because Republicans have not always been opposed to the Superfund program; both Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr. supported it) argues that the Superfund tax interferes with the free market.

Not so, says Robert F. Kennedy Jr. When discussing the environment on CSPAN’s Book TV, Kennedy explained that a product’s market value should reflect the cost of its production - and production includes environmental cleanup. By allowing chemical manufacturers to dump and not clean up, government is actually interfering with the market, Kennedy says. From this point of view, the true cost of chemicals is much higher than the market price, and this disturbs the free market system.

We can argue about the free market all we want, but one in four Americans still lives within four miles of a Superfund site, and half as many toxic waste sites are cleaned up each year now that the polluter-pays Superfund program is out of commission.

There are several bills that would reinstate the Superfund program pending in Congress (S. 173, H.R. 610). WomenMatter will track them and bring you updates.

Considering the future

Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry is concerned about the long-term costs of current environmental policies, such as the suspension of the Superfund program. But Kerry’s proposals focus less on environmental cleanup and more on energy policy.

In Our Plan for America, Kerry and his running mate, John Edwards, propose a detailed energy plan that they consider to be environmentally friendly.

The proposal includes the development of renewable energy resources such as wind and solar power as well as renewable fuels for vehicles. Kerry and Edwards want to put 100,000 hydrogen-fueled vehicles on the road by 2010 and see 2.5 million by 2020.

But is it that easy to quit our oil addiction? Will car manufacturers willingly participate in the conversion of their product? Will the transition to greater energy efficiency result in massive job losses in the automotive industry?

While coming off of oil is sure to have its side effects, Kerry and Edwards claim that the transition will actually create jobs. They say that the development and production of new fuel technologies will require new expertise and new business ventures and boost the economy, lessening our dependence on foreign oil.

How to quit foreign oil - Bush v. Kerry

Kerry’s plan is a clear departure from the last four years of environmental policy.

In contrast to Bush, Kerry and the Democrats do not trust the market alone to resolve our energy crisis. They believe that government should steer America away from foreign oil and towards renewable energy. This change will involve plenty of government participation in the form of federally-sponsored research, tax incentives, new fuel-efficiency standards, and stringent environmental regulations.

Republicans are opposed to so much government involvement. Again, they fear that government intervention will inhibit economic growth and spend too many federal dollars.

But Republicans are in favor of decreasing U.S. dependence on foreign oil as well. Their solution is to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

Both Republicans and Democrats feel that ANWR is the last frontier. Those who support drilling believe that ANWR is the best remaining prospect for significant oil discovery in the United States; those who oppose drilling maintain that it is some of the last untouched wilderness in the United States and argue that improving the fuel efficiency of motor vehicles would save more barrels of oil than can be extracted from the Arctic Refuge.

To learn more about drilling in ANWR, click here.

Where do you stand?

To decide where you stand, consider the past, present, and future of environmental policy and the philosophy behind these policies.

Discuss the environment with other WomenMatter readers by logging on to one of our online forums.

To continue to educate yourself on our Life Issues, click here .

You can also sign up for an e alert, and we’ll keep you posted. And don’t forget to register to vote and contact your representatives, because your voice matters.

WomenMatter is dedicated to empowering women to participate in the political process. To make a donation, click here.

Article Posted on: 9/17/2004