With the year 2000 presidential election quickly approaching, one issue that needs to be fully addressed by the candidates and must echo in the minds of us all when voting is the environment.
Most people do not consider the environment as a prominent issue in the elections because they fail to realize that the protection of the environment is not done merely for aesthetic purposes but also because the protection of the environment is connected to the economy and health care.
Although I enjoy hearing people say that action needs to be taken to help the environment, words mean nothing unless the politicians hear them. To be certain that the leaders in the coming millennium understand the importance of preserving the environment, we must cast our vote for the candidate who will best protect our common home.
Now who will accomplish the most for our Earth? Is it the likely Republican nominee, George W. Bush? If that is your answer, please do your research.
George W. Bush, governor of Texas, said he wants to be the second environmental president in his family. He believes the environment to be incredibly important in the next century. While his words are appealing, his actions are appalling. Serving his second term as governor, Bush has explaining to do before he can even whisper the words environmentally friendly.
He must explain why his state ranks first in toxic releases. OK, I can do that. Texas is a leader in the petroleum industry, so it only makes sense that it would be responsible for more toxic releases. On the surface, the large petroleum industry appears to serve as a legitimate excuse for his toxic release dilemma.
But the problem lies with the fact that Texas is 49th in environmental spending. Last time I checked we had 50 states, so Bush’s record is not too admirable. You would think that having the worst air pollution in the United States, with more than 50 percent of industrial plants violating the Clean Air Act, and with 20 percent of toxic chemical accidents occurring in Texas, Mr. Bush would be concerned and would at least attempt to clean up the industry. Instead of stiffer regulations and/or increased spending on environmental problems (which will be more expensive in the future if not addressed now), Bush hired an oil specialist, a consultant to industry, a member of the Texas Chemical Council and four others with similar records to the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission.
Probably the worst offense committed by Bush is allowing industry officials to secretly draw up an amendment to the Clean Air Act. On the surface, it appeared Bush was being tough on industry by closing a loophole in the act. Instead, he allowed industry, secretly (only known because of the Freedom of Information Act) to draw up voluntary regulations.
Regretfully, there is not enough room for me to continue with the atrocities committed by Bush. In closing, I beg you to seriously consider the environment when choosing our next president. Understand how important preservation of the environment is to our survival.
-The writer, a sophomore, is a member of the College Democrats.
