Editorial: Concession to polluters is troubling

Friday, March 16, 2001 | 10:15 a.m.

George W. Bush tried to soften his conservative image during the presidential campaign last year, portraying himself as a moderate on many issues, including the environment. For instance, he vowed to regulate industrial plants' emission of carbon dioxide, which scientists say has contributed to global warming. Closer to home, Bush said he wouldn't let politics determine whether this state would receive a high-level nuclear waste repository -- although many Nevadans questioned how strong his commitment was.

After Bush was sworn in as president, the doubts remained as to who ultimately would win out in the tug of war between the environment and polluting industries, especially after his renewed push for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But just a few days ago Bush was receiving guarded praise from environmentalists for developments early in his administration that were positive. For example, he agreed to carry over a Clinton administration rule that aims to reduce pollution from diesel-powered trucks and buses by 90 percent, a move opposed by oil producers and refiners. And Bush also was getting plaudits for the administration's continuing support of rules to decrease carbon dioxide, which Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christine Whitman had been touting less than two weeks ago.

But on Tuesday the president flip-flopped on his campaign pledge to crack down on carbon dioxide emissions. This reversal probably shouldn't have been too much of a surprise, though, since a New York Times article a few days ago mentioned how big business interests were upset with Bush's pro-environment leanings during the first months of his administration. When push comes to shove, Bush demonstrated this week that polluting industries will win out, no matter how much the environment may be threatened.

Bush used smoke and mirrors to explain his retreat, saying that the need for low-cost energy would be harmed if coal-fired power plants had to lower their emissions. But there is no such evidence that this indeed would significantly increase energy costs. For that matter, this argument sounds much like the one the auto industry made for years in fighting efforts to require greater fuel efficiency in its vehicles. Today cars get much better gas mileage, whose savings in the prices that motorists pay at the pump more than offset any higher costs to automakers.

After Bush's sudden change of heart was announced, a Whitman aide acknowledged to the New York Times that it had left her vulnerable, but then added: "It's his prerogative to decide if he wants to change that, and she will follow his lead." All of which brings us to Yucca Mountain. Recently Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn met with Whitman, who affirmed Bush's campaign pledge that the administration wouldn't flinch in its opposition to GOP-led congressional efforts to weaken the radiation safety standards for a proposed high-level nuclear waste repository. That vow now seems hollow in light of Bush's backtracking on global warming.

The nuclear power industry, which was a big campaign contributor to Bush's election bid, has long said that imposing strict standards on the emission of radiation from a nuclear waste repository could make it too costly to build. This line of reasoning sounds has an eerie ring to it -- it's almost the same argument made by the coal companies and those utilities dependent on coal's use as to why regulations against carbon dioxide emission should be scuttled. Nevadans had better pray that Bush's waffling on global-warming protections doesn't spread, making him susceptible to the siren song of the nuclear power industry and its efforts to relax safety standards for a nuclear waste repository proposed at Yucca Mountain.