Bush's Environmental Policy Has He Done What's Best for the American People? Conservative Voice

Author: Drew Pugsley

I am going to begin this article by pleading some ignorance on this particular topic. However, in the United States, and here in Vermont in particular, the environment is an important issue. I will not deny that the current administration's record on the environment is somewhat less than perfect.
However, it is important to understand the true implications of some of the environmental decisions any administration makes.
The argument that the Bush Administration could be more environmentally friendly is an obvious one. Every administration in the history of the United States, and in every other nation of the world, could have more strict environmental standards. However, the purpose of government is to do what it thinks is best for its people.
And it is in the long-term interests of every citizen of this world to have a safe, healthly and beautiful environment. But the fact of the matter is that each administration determines what it thinks is the best balance of business and environmental controls.
In a representative democracy, like the United States of America, we elect the representatives, senators and president who we think best represent our interests and will promote the balance with which we identify.
I will concede that the United States should have agreed to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. I was and am still absolutely as apprehensive about it as the current administration. However, as merely a gesture of cooperation and good faith to the rest of the world, it would not have killed us to accept those heightened environmental standards.
I personally believe that this particular issue may have been a political blunder if nothing else. While Bush and Donald Rumsfeld do not place as much emphasis on international relations or diplomacy as Colin Powell does, it is important to consider the negative consequences of not ratifying the treaty.
There are, of course, negative effects of every decision to increase environmental controls, as well. At this particular time, for example, to impose heavier restrictions on vehicle and factory emissions would do absolutely nothing to help the economy. Any increased cost that new regulations would cause to firms would be passed immediately on to consumers and would have virtually the same effect as a tax increase.
Although this could decrease pollution even further because factories would have to shut down, I doubt that most people who lost their jobs in those factories would be particularly happy. These solutions would have an immediate effect on the environment but would, with the advent of alternative energy technologies, eventually become obsolete.
I think it would probably be more appropriate to focus U.S. tax dollars on developing fuel cell technology and other alternative energy sources that provide longer-term solutions rather than adopting a policy that would hurt the economy.
Many Europeans make the argument that the citizens of the United States are too concerned with security and safety. They accuse most of us of being ultra-sensitive to threats. I see the truth in this argument and would liken it to the debate on the environment.
To me the actual condition of the environment always seems exaggerated. Of course I understand and agree that the environment should be carefully monitored and managed. However, to me, an irresponsible dictator with weapons of mass destruction seems to be a much more direct threat than the fact that the temperature is, on average, one degree higher than it used to be.
Could the Bush Administration's policies be more environmentally friendly? Sure. Should they be? OK. Would the opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge have cataclysmic effects on the world as we know it? Of course not.