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
Lame.......a term never more appropriately used than when in description of politicians. We've been saddled with nothing short of lame for more years than I can remember, dating back to 40's. Bush's leadership post-9/11??? THAT'S your idea of leadership??? I thought leading is defined as an ability to direct or manage for the betterment of the common good or specific to the group being "lead"? Pardon me while I regurgitate over the quality of our leadership.....
Did I misinterpret on an above post or was someone actually trying to blame the current administration for the Enron debacle? How naive the general public these days.
I agree with the intent Rick, but Beamis is right. Whether "we, the People" cast our ballots or not, certain factions of the governmental system are beyond the scope of the electoral process, at least as they pertain to an ability to effectively "change" with one electoral process. And the most ridiculous notion put forth that the gullible, ever-ignorant American public has swallowed hook, line and sinker is this absurd rhetoric purporting CHANGE by the Jackass Party. OF COURSE there will be change, but only due to that fact that a new family is moving into the Pennsylvania Avenue address. Politically speaking, that's change, and thereby no lies were made nor people hurt in the production of their commercial. The problem is that what the system needs isn't CHANGE......its REFORM. A does not equal B, and the differences between these two terms is not at all insignificant, but since most of the general public can't even speak or write proper English, put together a coherent sentence or comprehend the nuisances of the language (color and national origin be damned), or even grasp the simple yet subtle differences between the terms "democracy" and "republic", the public gets what it deserves. Maybe that's why funding for education is so hard to come by in this "great nation". If the masses actually understood the processes, reform would be the buzz-word, not some useless conceptual nonsense as "change". But the theory goes that if you use small words with multiple inferences, you can say many things without actually specifically saying anything meaningful. Ah the government practices of business as usual. But just as they promised, we sure got our change, didn't we?
The most accurate slogan for this election WOULD have been:
BLACK OR WHITE, NEITHER'S RIGHT
EVEN GREEN'S A BETTER OPTION
TUSKS AND MULES ARE FOR FOOLS
REFORM THE ORGANIZATION
Ok, so the pentameter is off a bit, sorry.
GO OBAMA.....GO McCAIN.....and take the rest of the bastards with you!
Maybe that should have been the slogan.
Why is it a liberal slant? Can't you just leave a little room for doubt that Bush might just be doing what tha article says. It's pretty easy to check.
Lone Hiker: If I'm not mistaken, regarding the Enron collapse, there is various White House memos that suggest that Dick Cheney was involved indirectly to the scandal. Kenneth Lay and Dick Cheney did have a meeting in April 2001 regarding Enron's wishes to refrain the federal authorities for imposing price caps to stabilize runway electrical prices in California...and which eventually made into Cheney's energy plan. The memo states: "The administration should reject any attempt to re-regulate wholesale power markets by adopting price caps or returning to archaic methods of determining the cost-base of wholesale power". The intent was to mitigate higher electrical prices to enhance and increase private investment. Perhaps the White House did not have a indirect input to the Enron scandal but the inference is there regarding some meddling into the energy shenanigans. This is nothing new here regarding the Bush & Cheney loosey goosey policies regarding hands off on big business to exploit illegal profiteering.
Question, why do mock those that try there best to express there opinions in the best way possible on NPT. Perhaps it's not in the best way grammatically or intelligently but they have a voice. Maybe it doesn't quite meet up to your standards of higher learning or reflect a lofty ivory tower of mentality with a Ph.D. If I'm not mistaken, your the one that has the background in chemical engineering. No!? Not all of us have been bless to live by the slide ruler. Anyway, your opinions are much enjoyed to read.
Whew! Talk about a polarized thread!
I fully agree with this statement, as the division between the factions grow wider each year:
And don't forget Fishermen, ORV Enthusiasts, Snowmoblilers, Mountain Bikers, and any other folks that love our national lands and wish to preserve them, regardless of their chosen mode of transportation, political leanings or the lack thereof.
Lone Hiker, I couldn't agree with you more! I had hoped that this day would come...
And reform needs to happen at all levels, but nowhere does it need to happen more than at the congressional level, where the true devils reside.
In reply to the latest Anon---
Thanks but my background is biochemistry and biotechnology, not engineering. Part and parcel of the biochem is a specific background in physics, solely pertaining to the properties of gasses, light and light energy as they are utilized in my field for diagnostic purposes. But the properties that we make everyday use of are quite similar to the technologies relating to solar cells and the compressed air vehicles now in production in France. But I digress, again. So in those instances when the topics turn to alternative energy, the overdone global warming discussions, the evils of fossil fuels, and the like, yes, I do tend to get my shorts in a knot reading the postings that were in my opinion, based in no small part by media disinformation and further misinterpretation or complete misunderstanding of data by the general Joe Poster on this and other sites.
Insofar as the Enron situation, those responsible were the group of idiots who attempted to run an energy supply conglomerate who in reality had absolutely NO idea how to manage a power grid, and probably had difficulty understanding how to operate a light switch as well. Most people tend to point out that the rolling blackouts that many citizens of California were forced to suffer through were rooted in a lack of "cooperation" amongst utility companies, the lack of a national power grid that could serve to backup any portion of the system by diverting supplemental power sources and some justifiable environmental concerns and fears surrounding nuclear facilities in and around the state for obvious reasons. The statement you make about greed and profiteering is all well and good, but cutting to the chase, had Enron not bankrupted PG&E and forced the only experienced and legitimately knowledgeable power management professionals to find other suitable employment, then mismanaged the entire west coast network due solely to their own ineptness, in all likelihood the entire episode would have been avoided. The profiteering, as it was called, never actually materialized beyond the executive levels of the company as was discovered by a federal audit of the corporate ledgers. That's not profiteering, that's grand larceny or grand theft, I always get those two mixed up, or more appropriately, strong armed robbery. The ignorance at the corporate levels (excluding the accountants, whom I would like to do my books sometime) that created the whole problem in no way can be attributed to the nightmare that is Bush / Cheney. And didn't Enron actually receive their corporate charter under the Wet Willie Clinton / Green Al Gore holocaust?
And I'm not now casting dispersions on anyone or their right to their opinion. Or ever. Under any circumstance.
My point was (and is) that the gullibility factor needs a drastic reduction in order for the nation to achieve a better understanding of the issues that cause us ALL daily grief. And those cute little plays on words and flat out misnomers that are "politic-speak" need to be CLOSELY scrutinized before becoming part of one's own everyday dialect. Otherwise, you begin to sound just like the goofs that uttered the phases in the first place. And we have enough of those people already.
And I NEVER criticize typos!!! Just what seems (to me) to be emotion over substance.
Thanks for the begrudging recognition that Congressman Grijalva (upon whose statements your article was based) misrepresented the Yellowstone bison management issue. Your thesis seems to be that Grijalva made many accusations, so what difference does it make if one is falacious? We have all the others to mindlessly believe! My view is why should I trust anything a proven liar says, until it's proven to be true. I only pointed out one of Grijalva's faulty claims ("Buffalo" Bush, the Bison exterminator), but we can go on to others, if you like, thus diminishing the believability of the "overwhelming body" of Grijalva statements. That wouldn't be necessary if you'd document "the overwhelming body of evidence" that you claim "supports the conclusion..." you'd like us to believe. And instead of interpreting said evidence, from one viewpoint, why not get an opinion from the Bush administration for their motivation in their alleged action (assuming they took such action). If they can't come up with a valid reason for their acts, we, the Traveler readers, are smart enough to catch them in their prevarifications.
I really don't see myself as an apologist for the Bush administration, nor the Clinton administration, nor the upcoming Obama admistration. However, when people from either political extreme, or extreme of one issue, disseminate false and inflamatory information it fuels a bitter polarization that is counterproductive to achieving goals supported by the overwhelming body of the American public. Accusations aren't a body of evidence. We, the Traveler readers, want facts from unbiased sources, and we'd like both sides of the story.