Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

Cheaper vs. cleaner: big differences

By Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor / September 28, 2004

Consider two recent news items: oil prices creeping up toward $50 a barrel and Antarctic glaciers breaking up into icebergs at an accelerated pace, probably due to global warming.

Skip to next paragraph

They may not seem related. And with war in Iraq and the economy topping the list of election concerns, energy and the environment aren't exactly front-page political news.

But the two overlap considerably. And while they may not rank as top-tier issues among voters, they resonate deeply and personally for millions of Americans - including many who've yet to make up their minds whom to vote for.

George Bush and John Kerry approach the two issues very differently.

Mr. Bush leans toward loosening government regulations and favoring the marketplace to reduce pollution, while opening federal lands to more logging, mining, and especially oil and gas drilling. He's suspicious of international efforts to address issues like climate change.

In his two decades as a United States senator, by contrast, Mr. Kerry has become known as one of the strongest supporters of environmental laws while advocating a faster pace toward renewable energy sources. He wants the US to engage more fully with the rest of the world on environmental issues that know no borders.

No issue symbolizes the contrast between the two better than the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. Bush wants to open part of the coastal plain there for oil drilling; Kerry has led the congressional fight to preserve the area for caribou, polar bear, and other wildlife.

Drilling for oil vs. wildlife

The philosophical basis of the Bush administration's approach to the twinned issues of protecting nature and moving toward energy independence is that environmental progress cannot be achieved without economic prosperity.

"We have made a national commitment to environmental improvement," says Environmental Protection Agency administrator Michael Leavitt. But as Mr. Leavitt, the former governor of Utah, also frequently says: "Nothing promotes pollution like poverty." And that, he acknowledges, "creates an undeniable tension between our environmental aspirations and our economic desires."

In principle, Mr. Kerry would not disagree.

But while activists criticize just about everything Bush does regarding energy and the environment, Kerry is seen as their champion.

Early in the primary season, Kerry was endorsed by the League of Conservation Voters, one of the largest and most overtly political environmental groups in the country. Describing him as "one of America's premier environmental leaders," the league asserted that "on a range of domestic issues - from clean air to clean water to public lands - Kerry has repeatedly staked out pro-environment positions."

The Sierra Club - the other major environmental organization that campaigns for candidates - has endorsed Kerry as well. "John Kerry's record on the environment is impressive by any measure and reveals a sincere personal passion for the issue," says Carl Pope, the club's executive director.

The issue does seem to be personally important to Kerry, as it does to his extended family. He met his wife Teresa at an Earth Day event in 1990, and he was one of a handful of US senators to attend the 1992 Earth Summit in Brazil. (Al Gore was there, too.)

Shared goal: cleaner fuel, air

Among Kerry's goals: Independence from Middle East sources of oil in 10 years and generating 20 percent of the nation's electricity from renewable or alternative sources by 2020.

In part, this would be achieved by directing some of the government royalties from oil and gas drilling on federal lands to the development of cleaner energy sources.

Long an advocate of raising fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks, Kerry also proposes tax credits for auto manufacturers and consumers in order to spur faster development of advanced technology vehicles. He would invest $10 billion in clean coal technology, and he advocates tax incentives to construct energy-efficient buildings and homes and retrofit older ones.

Depending on one's point of view, Kerry's proposals are either visionary and bold or they would "weaken the economy ... and cause massive job losses in key industries," as the Bush campaign asserts.

Bush, too, pledges to "reduce power plant emissions ... and help the states meet tougher new air quality standards." The focus of his clean-energy proposal is more government help to develop hydrogen-power fuel cell technology for vehicles, homes, and businesses.

Bush would change clean-air laws to emphasize a market approach to reducing such pollutants as mercury, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide. Under a "cap and trade" system, cleaner businesses could sell the right to pollute to other businesses unable to stay beneath their emission cap.