Along with much of the rest of the nation, many in the Great Lakes region are wondering what a Bush White House will mean for the environment. Nationally, some environmentalists are criticizing some of Bush’s plans for the environment. But around the lakes there seems tobe more of a ‘wait and see’ feeling. The Great Lakes RadioConsortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
Along with much of the rest of the nation, many in the Great Lakes region
are wondering what a Bush White House will mean for the environment.
Nationally, some environmentalists are criticizing some of Bush’s plans for
the environment. But around the lakes, there seems to be more of a ‘wait
and see’ feeling. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham
reports.
Before George Bush had even taken the reins of government, leaders of
environmental groups from around the nation recently gathered in Washington
D.C. to criticize his environmental views. Views which they say are far
removed from those held by the public at large. Deb Callahan is the
president of the League of Conservation Voters. She told reporters that her
group had commissioned a bi-partisan poll shortly after election
day –before anyone knew who would be president– to see what the people
thought about the environment.
“That poll shows unmistakably that Americans care deeply about
clean air, about safe drinking water, about protecting our nation’s public
lands. Voters expect their elected officials and, yes, cabinet officials to
uphold these basic and precious American values.”
But Callahan and the other environmentalists said bush apparently feels
differently. They say that’s proven by his first pick for an environmental
cabinet position. Gale Norton for Secretary of Interior.
“Her views are strikingly out of step with american mainstream
values. By nominating norton, president-elect bush has made clear we should
brace ourselves for an administration in which the public’s interest in
environmental protection is going to take a backseat to special interests’
desires to exploit land at the expense of our environment and quality of
life.”
Although that might represent the views of environmental groups at the
national level. There are some in the Great Lakes region who see the Bush
White House much differently. As you might expect, big business around the lakes –for
the most part– likes the ideas it’s hearing from bush and his
team. George Kuper is the president of the Council of Great Lakes
Industries. He says even though Bush supports industry, that doesn’t mean
the Bush White House will be bad for the environment.
“On environmental issues, I would just point out that history is a
pretty good determiner of the future, I think. At least 80-percent and
probably more of important, critical federal legislation relating to the
environment was signed by republican presidents.”
Examples include Teddy Roosevelt establishing the first national park. The
Modern era of environmental protection came together during Richard Nixon’s
time in office. And George W. Bush’s father signed important environmental
legislation.
Even some activists are open to the idea that the bush administration might
Approve legislation that environmentalists can support. Margaret Wooster is
the executive director of Great Lakes United, a bi-national coalition of
environmental groups. She says it’s true some republican presidents have
signed good environmental laws. But usually not until political pressures
forced them to act.
“Unfortunately, what provoked those things were things were so
bad –that was when Lake Erie was dead and so forth– so that everyone
could see that something had to be done. And, i mean, i’m hoping it does
not take a crisis of those kinds of proportions to get this administration
to do something.”
But Wooster says you never know. Bush could follow Nixon’s example of
passing good environmental laws if for no other reason than that they’re
politically expedient.
Other environmentalists, though, are worried. They fear that George W.
Bush will hold to his promise to let local agencies make more decisions,
changing the role of federal agencies. And that, they say, will be bad for
the environment. Keith Schneider is the program director of the Michigan
Land Use Institute. Schneider says federal agencies have been a last line
of defense against what he considers the state government’s damaging
economic development policies. What Schneider calls growth at any cost.
“The opposition to that was so helpful. And the technical
expertise provided by the field agencies like the fish and wildlife service
and the environmental protection agency, and the department of interior, and
the army corps of engineers was vital. Over the last eight years, the
federal government’s opposition has been very helpful to prevent bad things
from occurring to the environment.”
But it might be some time before much of anything happens differently in the
Great Lakes region. Early signs indicate that the new Bush administration
will be looking to things such as grazing issues in the west. And oil
drilling in the Alaskan wilderness. That might give Great Lakes leaders a
little time to plan strategy for dealing with a Bush White House.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.