Site Presented By
Saturday, Jul 11, 2009
And you thought Iraq was bad. A new book, "Bush Versus the Environment," details an assault on our air, water and natural resources that beggars the imagination.
Jun 30, 2004 | Bombing birds' nests is actually a boon for bird-watchers, since the ones that survive become rarer, and more exciting to spot. There's no one more qualified to keep our nation's forests healthy than a former timber lobbyist. The best person to uphold the Endangered Species Act is the lawyer who once argued before the Supreme Court that the act should be gutted. And pollution from power plants that cuts short the lives of 30,000 Americans a year is nothing to get upset about as long as you pledge your commitment to the best science in the name of "Clear Skies."
In his new book, "Bush Versus the Environment," Oregon journalist Robert S. Devine documents a record of environmental neglect and enmity that's so grim as to be laughable. He uncovers how in the name of "new environmentalism" the Bush crew pursues an agenda that's so radically pro-industry that even conservative Republicans are reluctant to cop to it publicly, cloaking their new policies in Orwellian happy-speak.
More than a laundry list of green crimes, "Bush Versus the Environment" is an analysis of how these anti-regulation administrators undermine laws they don't agree with, even if they're sworn to uphold them. Through a combination of benign neglect -- such as underfunding existing programs and settling lawsuits with corporations on absurdly favorable terms -- Devine shows that the Bush administration is doing far more to affect the stewardship of our public lands, air and water than even its most explicitly articulated policies suggest.
Devine has covered the environment, natural history and the outdoors for more than 20 years for publications such as the Atlantic Monthly, Audubon, National Geographic Traveler, and Travel & Leisure. Salon spoke with Devine by phone from his home in Corvallis, Ore.
How would you characterize the Bush administration's overall environmental philosophy?
I would break it into two pieces. One is simply old-fashioned industry greed. Some of the extractive industries, like fossil fuels, and a lot of industries that pollute are pretty heavily represented in governmental appointees all the way to the top, especially with the vice president. These industries are looking out for their bottom lines in a very classic, old-fashioned, all-too-familiar way.
And the other strain is what they would call "new environmentalism." I'm sure you've heard the phrase from [Department of Interior] Secretary Norton.
How would you define it?
Using the market [to effect environmental protection]. First of all, it's not new. It's certainly been done before, and there are some things that have worked out, especially on a smaller scale. When you see, for example, people at a local level getting together -- ranchers, farmers, environmentalists, local merchants, citizens and the local people from the federal and state government -- to talk about how to, say, restore salmon in a watershed in a way that works out for local business and the local people living off the land. Some of those programs have worked out very well.
But it seems to falter most often when it gets to the national and international level, where multinational corporations are involved. I don't think that they typically have the same sense of collaboration as local people do. Now, the Bush administration people would argue otherwise. They would point to the acid rain program probably -- that's their favorite example.
