In the second presidential debate (October 8th), President Bush said: "I am a good steward of the land. The quality of the air is cleaner since I've been the president." Senator Kerry responded: "The president, I don't think, is living in a world of reality with respect to the environment."

Where do the candidates stand on environmental issues? How would they approach these issues if elected? Let's look at the state of God's creation. The Knight-Ridder newspapers investigated 14 indicators of environmental health that have changed since 2001.1

According to their report, nine indicators have gotten worse:

• Superfund cleanups of toxic waste fell by 52 percent.
• Fish consumption warnings for rivers doubled.
• Fish advisories for lakes increased 39 percent.
• Beach closings rose 26 percent.
• Civil citations to polluters fell 57 percent.
• Criminal prosecutions dropped 17 percent.
• Asthma attacks increased by 6 percent.
• There were small increases in global temperatures.
• There were small increases in unhealthy air days.

Three of the 14 areas showed little change. The number of persons living in smoggy cities has fluctuated since 2001. The number of people drinking polluted water, and the overall toxic releases from industry were unchanged.

Two areas saw modest improvement. Major air-emissions from smokestacks and tailpipes dropped 9 percent and greenhouse-gas emissions fell by 0.5 percent.

The differences between the President and Senator Kerry on the environment are pronounced. The President and the Senator disagree on how to reduce air pollution, how to provide for energy needs, how to limit climate change, how to protect wildlands, and how to control toxic and nuclear waste.

As noted by Juliet Eilperin: "Both sides say the government needs to do more to curb pollution from coal-fired power plants, which generate half the nation's electricity but account for 90 percent of the industry's pollution, according to federal estimates. But many environmentalists and Democrats say that federal law calls for steeper and faster pollution curbs than contained in the president's plan and that Congress should also limit carbon dioxide emissions that are linked to global warming. The utility industry — which has donated $34 million to federal candidates since Bush took office, two-thirds of which went to Republicans — has resisted regulation but prefers Bush's plan to other proposals. The outlook is also dim for a bill sponsored by Sens. McCain (R-AZ) and Lieberman (D-CT) that would curb emissions linked to global warming." (The Washington Post, 10/18/04, page A02)

The following are President Bush and Senator Kerry's positions on specific regulatory and legislative proposals. Also included are what PC(USA) General Assemblies have said about these issues.

Clean Air

The Clean Air Act must be reauthorized every 10 years. The legislative battles to reauthorize it are often fierce and can drag out for years. In the past, Republicans and Democrats have been more divided by region than by party on the issues related to the cleanup of the nation's air. From its first passage in 1970, the Clean Air Act has gradually resulted in clearer air as cars and new power plants have been required to be less polluting. Historically, the Act focused on controlling sulfur dioxide pollution and the various oxides of nitrogen. Mercury from coal burning is the largest source of mercury in the environment and one of the main reasons that state after state has listed certain fish as having mercury levels so high that they are dangerous to eat. Carbon dioxide and other gases that cause global warming have not been controlled.

In 2002, the 214th General Assembly passed a resolution, "On Cleaning Up Power Plant Pollution" which "ask[ed] all Presbyterians to exercise stewardship by urging government officials to support federal policies and multipollutant legislation that will, in the most cost-efficient way,

1. enforce current clean air laws by federal and state governments;
2. resist efforts to abolish or under- cut established clean air programs;
3. enact new clean air laws for power plants that will substantially reduce pollutants that cause smog, acid rain, respiratory disease, mercury contamination, and global warming;
4. end the "grandfather" loophole that exempts older coal-fired plants; and
5. encourage federal funding of technologies that will facilitate and/or reduce the cost of implementing these recommendations.

3. Direct the Stated Clerk to communicate this new policy to power companies that have outdated coal-fired plants that were "grandfathered" under the Clean Air Act. (Minutes, 2002, pp. 72, 598-599)

George W. Bush has proposed Clear Skies legislation, which he says would cut power plant emissions by 70 percent. But HR 999/S 485 would cap only three pollutants (nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and mercury) and would allow greater pollution than simply enforcing the present Clean Air Act.2 It does not cover carbon dioxide pollution, but would impose:

• A 2.1 million ton Nox cap by 2008, cut to 1.7 million tons by 2018;
• A 4.5 million ton cap on SO2 would be imposed by 2010, cut to 3 million tons in 2018, and
• A cap on mercury of 26 tons per year by 2010 and 15 tons per year by 2018, and sources would be able to avoid reduced emissions by trading emission credits.

No action has been taken on Clear Skies. The Bush Administration decided to pursue regulatory action on mercury, but their proposal would allow mercury pollution from power plants to increase to three times the present limit.3

John Kerry was one of 19 original co-sponsors of the Clean Power Act of 2003, S 366, whose main authors were Sens. Jeffords (I-VT), Collins (R-ME) and Snowe (R-ME). S 366 would have cut pollutants from three sources already controlled by the Clean Air Act-nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxides, and mercury-and would have controlled emissions of carbon dioxide for the first time.4 Kerry voted against Bush's plan to allow older polluting power plants that were "grandfathered" in under the Clean Air Act to expand without adding pollution control technologies on their expansions.5 Kerry has also opposed the Administration allowing mercury pollution to increase.

Nuclear Waste

The United States has more than 100 nuclear power plants. Waste from these has accumulated at the power plant sites. Originally, federal legislation required a waste repository in the East and one in the West. The Reagan Administration did not pursue the eastern site. Sites in Texas were rejected for the western site, leaving only the Nevada site. Nevada voters have opposed it, as have the Native American tribes in the area.

In 1987 the 199th General Assembly urge[d] the United States to:

1. Pursue diligently the search for geologically acceptable, permanent high-level nuclear waste disposal sites, meeting EPA requirements;
2. Consider carefully the objections raised against the selection of Hanford, Washington, Deaf Smith County, Texas, and Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as prospective sites for such a permanent depository because of the potential risk of contamination of the Columbia-River Basin and Oglala Aquifer, areas of great human and economic significance;
3. In light of the inadequacy of existing water pond facilities to provide for temporary storage of spent nuclear fuel, develop intermediate storage facilities for high-level nuclear waste until the question of a permanent nuclear waste disposal is settled in its scientific and political terms, but not to consider such monitored retrieval storage (MRS) facilities as permanent solution to the problem or simply a way of meeting the mandate of the NWPA [Nuclear Waste Policy Act] and thereby postponing the difficult decisions of a permanent repository; and
4. Establish a formula for allocating the decommissioning costs of presently operating nuclear power plants, so that the costs and benefits will be distributed justly among utility customers, taxpayers, and utility investors. (Minutes, 1987, p. 414)

George W. Bush has supported the development of the national nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.6 John Kerry opposes the Nevada repository and has repeatedly voted against it.7

Climate Change

Leading climate scientists have agreed (through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) that the changes we are seeing are increasing due to human actions. The U.S., with only 5 percent of the world's population, produces 25 percent of the global warming gases. The United States was originally a leader in the development of a climate treaty to control global warming gases. President George H.W. Bush signed the 1992 Climate Treaty and persuaded the Senate to ratify it. By 1994, it was clear that the voluntary approach in the Treaty did not work and that nations would have to accept quotas if dangerous climate change was to be averted. Since then, a series of amendments have been negotiated — the Kyoto Protocol. The Russia Duma ratified it, the requirements will go into force in those nations that are part of the Protocol.

In 2003, the 215th General Assembly:

1. Reaffirm[ed] the call of the 202nd, 210th, and 211th General Assemblies for the United States to ratify the Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol.
2. Call[ed] on the United States government to join in the world effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and to develop and enact a national emergency response, underwritten by law, with adequate financial support, and economic enforcement mechanisms, to be fully functioning by 2005, with targeted reductions by that time.
3. Direct[ed] the Stated Clerk to communicate this concern to the president of the United States, and all appropriate government authorities. (Minutes, 2003, pp. 617-618)

George W. Bush decided to remove the U.S. from the Kyoto Protocol process to amend the Climate Treaty 8 and backed off his promise to cut global warming through regulation of old power plants.9 His current plans for voluntary reductions are much less than he promised in 2000. He has, however, increased research funding on global warming's causes, though he decreased funding for energy efficiency research. He also does support increased funding of nuclear power plants and hydrogen fuels as a way to reduce global warming.10

John Kerry has introduced legislation to address global climate change and cut greenhouse gas emissions.11 He promised in the second debate that he would work to fix the Kyoto Protocol if elected.

The 216th General Assembly overtur[ed] to

1. Declare opposition to the change in requirements of emission from smoke stack industries, changes instituted by the EPA on August 27, 2003, in the New Source Review permitting requirements for emissions from power plants and manufacturing facilities. 'The new rules would allow thousands of older power plants, oil refineries, and industrial units to make extensive upgrades without having to install new antipollution devices' (The New York Times, 8/22/03, Katherine Q. Seeley)
2. Petition the president of the United States to draft rules that would further reduce tailpipe emissions by increasing fuel efficiency of new vehicles.
3. Petition the major manufacturers of vehicles to accelerate the use of existing technologies that would achieve further gains.
4. Request the Stated Clerk to communicate this action to the president of the United States and the administrator of the EPA and the appropriate members of Congress. The communication should include the impact that smoke stack and tailpipe emissions is having on the health of our most vulnerable populations and on our environment due to acid rain, smog, increased ozone levels, and emissions of mercury and heavy metals. (2004 General Assembly) 

Energy Plan 

A major part of the Bush energy plan, which stalled in Congress, was the opening of more U.S. lands to oil and gas drilling. While drilling in more U.S. areas sounds like a way to reduce oil imports, many of these lands are especially vulnerable to oil and gas drilling — due to their status as reserves for endangered animals. One major area proposed for drilling — the Eastern Front of the Rockies — was recently withdrawn from consideration when Republican conservationists in Montana opposed it because of its impact on grizzly bears, elk and other animals.

Senator Kerry would cut oil dependency by creating "a $5 billion incentive program to help automakers retool their assembly lines to produce more efficient cars, and he would spend the same amount on consumer tax incentives to get people to buy them." (NYTimes, 9/13/04, "Looking for Energy in the Campaign") The other part of Kerry's plan is to learn to live with coal, which produces 56 percent of the nation's electricity. Sen. Kerry "would crank up the subsidy machine again to develop and deploy new technologies that strip the coal of pollutants before it is burned and, in the case of carbon dioxide, inject them into the ground." (NYTimes, 9/13/04) 

ANWR 

Mr. Bush's main approach is to increase "production of oil and gas, the centerpiece of which is his proposal to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for drilling." (NYTimes, 9/13/04)  

ANWR is only 60 miles from the Alaska Oil pipeline. Its proximity alone makes it a tempting location to develop for oil. Still, it is one of the most pristine areas in the United States and is summer home to millions of nesting birds and the largest caribou herd in North America. The Canadian government has already made its portion of the Arctic coast near the refuge off limits to oil exploration and drilling, but the U.S. Congress has not put it off limits yet. Environmentalists point out that ANWR is only likely to contain about six months of oil, an amount that could be saved quite easily through greater automobile efficiency.

George W. Bush supports opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling.12 John Kerry opposes oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and sponsored legislation to protect key portions of the Refuge as permanent wilderness.13 For more information, see the Web sites of the candidates for explanations of their positions.

• georgewbush.com/environment
• johnkerry.com/issues/environment
• johnkerry.com/communities/enviros/compare.html