Gore's EPA vs. Bush's Texas

Al Gore has gotten a free ride in this election on the environment, and the media's complicity in this free ride is a tremendous disservice to the public. Here's the actual record, comparing the role of Gore's EPA and Bush's Texas. Regarding Gore's role in these policies, it's important to remember that under the past several administrations the Veep is the de facto cabinet officer for the EPA (whose chief is not a cabinet officer); furthermore, Gore more than any other veep has been the White House point man on green issues, and finally, that the environmental agenda has been driven for the past several years by "reinvention," supervised in the early '90s by Al Gore, and almost entirely ignored, except for the splendid chapter on it in Al Gore: A User's Manual by the writers of Nature & Politics and editors of our newsletter CounterPunch.

First Accusation: Bush has allowed Texas to have the worst smog in the country.

Actual Facts: Texas has been no more dilatory than numerous other states, all of whom were allowed to slide for the past six years. EPA chief Carol Browner has repeated this accusation, blaming Bush for not spending enough money on the environment. In fact, it was Browner's EPA that bred and fed this recalcitrance. Beginning in 1994 (before Bush was elected, before the Republicans took over Congress) the EPA allowed for such delays. EPA's green light for such postponements was part of a larger shift in priorities for the agency in which, as part of its Gore-driven "reinvention of environmental protection" agenda, it de-played the Clean Air Act's mandatory requirements and emphasized market-based and other "voluntary" approaches. The "delay" strategy was leveraged partly by Democrats Carl Levin (Senate) and John Dingell (House), who appealed to Clinton and Gore for relief.

Second Accusation: Bush dismantled inspection and maintenance programs.

Actual Facts: The Clean Air Act's requirements are spelled out clearly in the Act, but were first compromised by EPA Assistant Administrator for Air Mary Nichols in 1993 under heavy political pressure from California. This was the beginning of a long and slippery slope, one which continues today all across the country. As a result of the 1993 policy cave-in, EPA has never since been able to draw a clear or defensible line in the sand. Any subsequent cave-ins flow from this first pivotal battle, in which California called EPA's bluff and EPA blinked.

Third Accusation: Bush has pushed "voluntary" approaches and flexibility, instead of issuing mandatory rules.

Actual Facts: This is actually the core theme of Gore's "Reinvention." A look at EPA's Reinvention website, followed by a second look at EPA's air policies since 1994 and 1995, confirms that the Clinton-Gore Administration has been ardently advocating just such policies for quite some time, over the objections of many environmental advocates. Even Anne Gorsuch (Boadicea of the Reaganauts, who ran the EPA in Reagan Time) fell short of Gore's fierce advocacy of this approach.

Fourth Accusation: Asthma and air pollution in Texas have increased.

Actual Facts: The debate over the cause of asthma remains unresolved, but the data have shown for some time that asthma disproportionately affects urban populations, and that emergency hospital admissions for asthma and other respiratory ailments spike immediately following high daily readings for ozone. It is the ozone attainment plans required under the Clean Air Act that EPA has allowed to slide and which are now six years overdue under the Act.

Fifth Accusation: Bush's pro-business and "oil-and-gas background."

Actual Facts: Bush's whoring for the oil industry is indisputable. So is Gore's.

Sixth Accusation: Texas leads the nation in toxic chemical emissions.

Actual Facts: True, the environmental situation in Texas is really bad, but here are some points to be kept in mind in assessing the performance of Gore and Bush:

Does the accusation say more than that Texas is very big in terms of the petrochemical industry? What has Gore's EPA done about any of the issues raised here? What is the federal plan for toxins in the petrochemical industry?

How fares the federal program for air toxins, under section 112 of the 1990 amendment to the Clean Air Act? These issues are precisely the burden of many complaints now being raised under the rubric of environmental justice and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. In June of this year the EPA released guidelines on dealing with such issues. The response of environmental justice advocates has been extremely critical of the EPA proposal on the grounds that it "insidiously undermines the design and potential of Title VI ... the Guidance in reality is a procedural stealth attack on environmental justice." They hang this failure directly on Gore's EPA.

California's leadership on air issues goes back to the 1960s in legislation and agencies which have never been completely overturned since then. How would Bush govern if he had a California electorate? Or a California legislature to back him up?

In sum, perhaps what is most bizarre is that on almost every policy for which Bush is attacked--at least with regard to air--his policies are in close agreement with, and in some cases perhaps even more environmentally aggressive than, the policies of Al Gore's EPA. Both sides try to draw contrasts between their approach and their opponent's, but the contrasts only succeed if the listener lacks the facts, the record, or doesn't choose to look.

Several states have turned in less than impressive environmental performances during the 1990s, and Texas may be one, but there are others even worse, such as Michigan and Louisiana. It was to combat such backsliding at the state and local levels that Congress, in 1970, 1977, and 1990, strengthened the Clean Air Act. There was substantial momentum until the Clinton/Gore/Browner administration took over in 1993. This slow-up occurred well before the January 1995 Republican takeover of Congressional committees. Several EPA Inspector General investigations have confirmed that EPA has seriously bobbled enforcement under this Administration, and has in effect encouraged a lax approach on the part of the states. States attempting to take a more aggressive approach will find themselves attacked by industries and politicos claiming they are not offering a "competitive" business environment. In practical terms in the Clinton/Gore years, EPA enforcement resources have been inexorably cut.