Fearing that Democrats may win the White House as well as strengthen their control of Congress, our lame duck president is rushing to eviscerate as many environmental protection laws as he can before the moving trucks arrive. There is an almost palpable sense of urgency.
Those of us who advocate for cleaner air, cleaner water, healthier wildlife habitat, more wilderness protection, and other environmental values are justifiably upset. But even though the methods Bush and his appointees are using are undemocratic and unethical, they are quite legal. In fact, they have been used by presidents before him, including Bill Clinton.
What’s the big rush? To understand the sense of urgency pervading the scene, you need to turn the clock back 16 years. Bill Clinton won the presidential election in November 1992. When he took office in January 1993, he taught the Republicans a lesson they will never forget. During its last days, the George H.W. Bush administration had made a whole bunch of rulings and issued many directives that Democrats didn’t like. But in making their end-run around Congress (which never got the chance to vet the decisions) the Bush ’41 administration apparently forgot the extremely important fact that 60 days must elapse before new federal regulations take effect. Upon taking office on January 20, Clinton simply reversed them, dumping them unceremoniously into the dustbin of history. (Clinton made sure that his own end-arounds went into effect more than 60 days before the next presidential inauguration. A prime example is his highly controversial proclamation of Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, which was dated September 18, 1996. The fact that Clinton was reelected did not diminish the worth of the tactic.)
Republicans were dismayed at Clinton’s destruction of their handiwork in January 1993, and they vowed that it would never be allowed to happen again. Fast forward to Fall 2008. Time is running out for the Bush administration to achieve its long-held goal of weakening environmental protection laws in order to create a climate more favorable to resource exploitation and wealth creation. Polls confirm that the public does not want weaker environmental protection laws, and that’s a problem. Democrats control Congress, and that’s a bigger problem. Barrack Obama seems poised to defeat John McCain in the presidential election on Tuesday, and though that is far from a done deal, it is the biggest problem of all.
Surprisingly, none of this really matters in the odd metric of the American legal system. If you are the president of the United States, even if you are as unloved as George W. Bush, you and your appointees can render decisions that alter or negate federal laws without violating the constitution. Whether gutting the Endangered Species Act, weakening the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, or whatever, the decisions and directives are legally binding unless revoked within 30 days. There is no public input and no Congressional vetting -- just a sneaky end-around that scarcely pays lip service to the democratic process. What an odd way, you might say, for a democracy to conduct its business.
Bush's systematic weakening of environmental protection laws has been across the board, but especially vigorous in the direction of the Endangered Species Act, a law that developers hate with an extra measure of passion. Earthjustice has summed it up rather nicely (August 11, 2008):
With only months to go before leaving office the Bush administration took the wraps off its latest plan to weaken environmental laws. Dale Hall, head of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, announced the administration is proposing changes in current federal rules to allow any government agency the authority to approve projects that could harm rare and threatened wildlife or their habitat. The proposed rule change would replace 35 years of mandatory review by independent federal scientists. The proposed change in wildlife protection rules echoes a similar effort the Bush administration embarked on a few years ago which was stopped by order of a federal court. In that case, the administration gave EPA the authority to approve deadly poisons without first seeking the expert advice of the US Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service.
George Bush is certainly no dummy. He understands that time is the most precious sort of capital, and that he is fast running out of it. You can count on him and his appointees to trash as many environmental protection laws and regulations as they can as fast as they can, making sure that they beat the 30-day deadline preceding the next presidential inauguration. That's slated for January 20, 2009, so there are less than two months left. The pace will soon accelerate; you can count on it.
To his Republican base, and especially the powerful interests to whom he is beholden, George Bush is saying, “I have fought the good fight to get rid of those ridiculous constraints on economic development.” To the rest of us he is saying: “Put that in your hookah and smoke it, you tree-hugging, bunny-loving, eco-freaks!”
What all of this portends for our national parks remains to be seen, but the damage could be severe and long-lasting. Environmentally harmful rules-making is a process that impacts environmental quality in a broad scale way, affecting the parks directly, indirectly, and chronically. For more details about the nature of Bush administration threats to the parks, see the Grijalva report entitled "The Bush Administration Assaults on Our National Parks, Forests and Public Lands (A Partial List)."
Traveler trivia, no extra charge: If John McCain wins this election, it will reset the clock. The last time the Republicans won a presidential election without a Nixon or Bush on the ticket was in 1928.
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
It's unfortunate that raising concerns about environmental issues is so quickly cast by some as a liberal vs. conservative or a partisan issue. As pointed out above, administrations of both parties have used their final months in office to push through whatever fits their agenda. That may be a reality of our "system," but I don't think it makes for good public policy.
Whether or not you object to the current rush to modify public land policies and regulations probably depends largely upon your view of government regulation in general. It doesn't require a detailed analysis of history to confirm that little or no regulation has often resulted in serious harm to the environment, human health and our quality of life. It's also easy for the regulators to get out of hand. The difficult trick is finding an appropriate balance.
I agree that environmental (and other government regulations) can often use some adjustments, but logical and responsible decisions on complex issues will rarely result if they are based solely on the ideology of the "party currently in power," and if they are rushed through to meet a deadline based on political expediency.
If the current changes that have suddenly emerged on the scene in recent months are so critical, I have to wonder why they weren't brought to the table in the first year of the administration instead during of the final months. Perhaps the answer is that in at least some cases, they simply can't withstand reasoned analysis - or they would be seen as a political liability for someone running for reelection.
One of my greatest concerns with the current administration has been the way it has made a mockery of the public comment process. A case in point is the current "review" of public comments on proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act.
According to news reports from the AP and other sources, Interior received about 200,000 comments on this proposal. If public input is to have any meaning in our system of government, a reasonable analysis of those comments should be made as part the decision-making process. However, the agency reportedly intended to complete the review of those comments with a team of 15 people working over a 4 day period of presumably 8-hour government work days.
Several commentators have noted that this effort by Interior would require about 6,250 comments to be reviewed every hour. That means that each member of the team would be "reviewing" at least seven comments each minute, or as one observer put it, just about long enough to slide each paper across the reviewer's desk and into the trash can.
Yes, some of those comments are form letters, and can be categorized as "for" or "against" fairly quickly. Others, however, include thoughtful and detailed material which deserves at least an honest reading.
Whether you agree with the proposed changes or not, if our system of government that supposedly grants "power to the people" is to function in a healthy way, those who are elected or hired to act in the best interests of the people need to perform those duties in a manner worthy of their hire. Sadly, I don't see that happening in situations such as the one I've just described.
Originally posted on 11/2 but edited on 11/3 to insert a missing word without realizing it would change the location of the post.
Bob,
I share with you the dismay about the power of executive orders and think that perhaps in most cases they should not have the force of law. That said, I do take issue with the tenor of your post.
My issue with your post is not the statement of facts (it seems fairly clear that the Bush administration is rushing to weaken environmental protection laws and regs), but in
1) the presumption that you know all the motivations of the Bush administration, perhaps best illustrated by
To his Republican base, and especially the powerful interests to whom he is beholden, George Bush is saying, “I have fought the good fight to get rid of those ridiculous constraints on economic development.” To the rest of us he is saying: “Put that in your hookah and smoke it, you tree-hugging, bunny-loving, eco-freaks!”
2) the assumption that any weakening of environmental protection laws and regs is a bad thing. Sometime laws and regs are a good idea at the time and at a later time are no longer needed. Sometimes laws are bad to begin with. I want "cleaner air, cleaner water, healthier wildlife habitat (although the last not at the expense of human habitat), but that doesn't mean that I believe the every environmental law and reg is a good thing. It seems to me that frequently once you involve law and an unthinking bureaucracy, things have to be done whether they make sense or not.
Mark
Yea for President Bush... these laws should have been gutted years ago. GO President Bush, slash, slash away...
No matter whether you think that Obama or McCain ought to be the next president, let's all get out to vote tomorrow. No one can bitch who doesn't.
Rick Smith
Mr Janiskee, do you think an Obama administration will be any better, guess what "it'll be worst," then you'll be wishing for somebody else. its easy to pick on George Bush, but nobody remembers his leader ship during 9/11 and afterwards. President Bush has done plenty for this country and the environment and our national parks which i greatly cherish, lets look beyond the negetive and quite gripping. and be appreciative! for what we have.
I'm an independent who is sick and tired of politically based misrepresentations by democrats and republicans alike. My 6th grade teacher taught me "Figures don't lie, but lier's figure". I'm thinking you and your partner, Repanshek, are figuring you have a gullible readership. Your article cites the Grijalva report and links to an article wherin several allegations of said report are reprinted. Let's look at Democratic congressman Grijalva's first allegation (that's all that's needed to prove we can't trust anything he states):
Grijalva states "The Bush Administration has presided over the largest slaughter of bison since the Great Plains herds were slaughtered nearly to extinction by unscrupulous buffalo hunters in the late 1800s. "
What Grijalva doesn't mention are these facts which are attained from various websites of Buffalo advocacy groups and from the New York Times (hardly friendly to the Bush Administration)*:
1) In 1996 (during Bill Clinton's reign) about 1000 Yellowstone buffalo were "slaughtered"*. That means, until 2008, the Clinton Administration "presided over the largest slaughter of bison since the Great Plains herds were slaughtered nearly to extinction by unscrupulous buffalo hunters in the late 1800s." The 2008 numbers were a wee bit larger, so Grijalva's point isn't a lie depending on what you mean by "presided over". I can't help but wonder if Grijalva, Repanshek, and other democrats, were denouncing the Clinton Administration in 1996 for their record of slaughtering bison.
2) A rooster crows at dawn, but does that mean he's responsible for the sunrise? Or does he just "preside over" the sunrise? Neither the Clinton, nor Bush administrations, were responsible for the culling of the Yellowstone Buffalo herd, in 1996, 2008 or any other year. The herds are adminstered over jointly by a group of federal and state organizations, but it is the state of Montana that has authority for the culling of the Yellowstone herd.
3) Buffalo are only killed if they leave the park. No Buffalo are killed within Yellowstone. There are fears that the Buffalo will not only damage rancher's fences and other property, but also spread Brucellosis to the rancher's cattle herds. Buffalo advocates say these are unrealistic fears, but in the past many of the park's buffalo have tested positively for Brucellosis. Brucellosis in humans is known as undulent fever. While it is unlikely to be spread from Buffalo to humans, even through a cattle intermediary, it is still cause for concern among the ranchers surrounding the National Park and also the states in which they reside. To ship cattle out of state, the state (without expensive testing) much have a "brucellosis-free" status indicating that brucellosis has been eliminated from it's cattle. Foreign countries can refuse to accept American beef, if they fear it might be contaminated, or use contamination to excuse protectionism against American beef imports (it's happened). Montana spent an estimated $30 million between 1985 and 1997 to maintain their "brucellosis-free" status. A rancher must slaughter any of his cattle infected by brucellosis and cannot use, or sell the meat. Anyone that has traveled in Montana, or Wyoming, knows that they have small economies relative to a state like California and those economies are highly dependent on cattle. So, not only does an individual rancher have fears of his livelyhood being decimated, his state also has fears of huge financial hardship. Unrealistic fears aren't so unrealistic when there are big consequences to yourself.
4) The Buffalo are not being slaughtered to the point of extinction as Grijalva would like you to believe. He knows he's planting that thought, when he uses words like slaughter and extinction in his false accusation. There are an estimated 250,000 buffalo in the United States (from various sources including the N.Y. times. PBS estimated only 200,000 plus). They are mostly located on private ranches, but there are large herds in many Federal and State Preserves. I've personally seen herds, in excess of several hundred buffalo, in The National Bison Range in Western Montana, Theodore Roosevelt National Park in N. Dakota and Custer State Park in S. Dakota.
5) Meat from culled brucellosis-free Yellowstone buffalo is donated to local tribes and food kitchens. Custer State Park (one of the best parks in North America for viewing wildlife) has funded a lot of it's costs by auctioning excess Buffalo (more than the park can maintain) from it's herd.
6) The reasons why Buffalo stray across Yellowstone N.P. boundaries, leading to their culling by the state of Montana, is that the Yellowstone Park ecosystem, is not able to maintain a herd of more than a thousand, or so, year round. In a bad winter, hundreds, perhaps a thousand buffalo can freeze to death or die of starvation. In one year, it's reported 850 died. I don't know if that was a modern record, exceeding "all since the frozen buffalo records established by the plain's Indian administrations of the 1700's and 1800's."
Conclusion: Based on this one issue: A) Grijalva is not to be trusted. But he is a partisan politician and his "report" probably earned a lot of good donations from "concerned environmentalists". Do some investigating of your own and see if you can debunk a few more of his allegations B) This websites authors are probably "concerned environmentalists" (aren't we all?), but accepted Grijalva's partisan "report" hook line and sinker. Instead of a "them against us" mentality, true environmentalists should strive to build coalitions with hunters, ranchers, fiscal conservatives etc etc. to build a broad based consensus on preservation. That means compromise and the end of misrepresentations.
* See New York Times article ("Shooting and Harsh Weather Take a Toll")
John K asks me if an Obama administration would be any better. I don't know, nor can I say whether McCain would do any better either. What I can say is this: no matter who occupies the oval office, we'll be carefully monitoring his environmental stewardship -- especially as it regards the national parks -- and we'll hold his feet to the fire if he uses unethical tactics to undermine the laws Congress has enacted to protect environmental quality.
G. Pinson uses the example of the Yellowstone bison management controversy to seal his argument that critics of the Bush administration are not to be trusted where matters of environmental stewardship and national park management are concerned. I think that Traveler readers are sharp enough to realize that a body of evidence is the sum of its parts, not any individual part (as the instructions to juries make abundantly clear). An overwhelming body of evidence supports the conclusion that systematic weakening of environmental protection laws has been an identifying trait of the Bush administration, and that the pace of the activity has accelerated dramatically in recent months. No amount of bobbing and weaving is going to change that. I've predicted that the pace will become even more frantic in the weeks to come, and I cordially invite G. Pinson and anyone else to monitor the relevant events and heap ridicule on me if I'm proven wrong.