It’s the sort of mark of distinction that Democrats are sure to use against Gov. George W. Bush in the final days of the presidential campaign. Already, Vice President Al Gore had made a point of mentioning Texas’ pollution problems during the presidential debates. The Democratic National Committee has seized on the issue as well, launching a series of ads now airing in key electoral areas assailing Bush’s environmental record. “Two million more pounds of toxic chemicals dumped into Texas waterways,” the narrator in one Florida spot says. “Leading the nation in the number of factories that can violate clean water standards. Now imagine Bush’s Texas record in Florida’s Everglades.” Similarly, an ad running in Washington State shows the Seattle skyline in a cloud of smog and urges viewers to “take a deep breath and imagine Seattle with Bush’s Texas-style environmental regulation.” The takeaway message, delivered in the last line: “George Bush: Before he talks about cleaning up Washington, maybe he should clean up Texas.”
Bush says he’s been doing just that–and some of the numbers back him up. His recent campaign releases cite Environmental Protection Agency statistics indicating a 43 million pound reduction in toxic emissions from 1995 to 1998. They point to Bush’s record of cleaning up so-called brownfields–abandoned industrial sites that can require costly decontamination efforts before they can be reused. And they maintain that the governor’s commitment to the environment is typified by tough recent laws governing emissions in Texas from “grandfathered” plants, those exempted from standards of the 1971 Clean Air Act. The governor last year signed a stringent electric deregulation bill requiring power plants to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions by 50 percent and sulfur oxide emissions 25 percent by 2003. “We reduced our industrial waste by 11 percent,” Bush said during last Wednesday’s debate. “We cleaned up more brownfields than any other administration in my state’s history–450 of them. Our water is cleaner now.”
Environmentalists don’t see it that way, and for every positive statistic the Bush camp publicizes, they’re armed with one showing Texas in trouble. For example, the Bush camp cites a May Environmental Protection Agency report showing that in 1998, Texas dropped from first to fifth in the amount of toxic chemicals released into the environment. Opponents counter that the state still ranks first in industrial emissions excluding utilities and mining waste.
Another case in point: Bush’s cleaner water claim during the debate, which is likely founded on 1999 data from the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission showing that more than 97 percent of the state’s public drinking water meets government safety standards, vs. 88 percent in 1995. Still, the Gore camp uses EPA data to backup a charge in the Florida ad that Texas ranks number three in water pollution. The Sierra Club responded to Bush’s debate claim by referring to the same EPA numbers showing toxic discharges into surface waters increasing by 2 million pounds from 1995 to 1998. “Gov. Bush clearly has been very weak when it comes to environmental protection in Texas,” says Deb Callahan of the League of Conservation Voters. “As we have looked at the record both on the pollution side and on the conservation side Texas ranks near the bottom on most every environmental and conservation issue.”
Beyond the statistical battle is a philosophical one. Texas, the Bush campaign Web site states, is home to one quarter of U.S. oil refineries, two-thirds of U.S. chemical industries and more electric power generation than any other state. There’s little question that Bush inherited an industrial state with significant pollution problems and what’s been described as a laissez faire approach toward dealing with them. But instead of aggressively cracking down on polluters, Bush–in keeping with his general philosophy against obtrusive government–has insisted that state-imposed laws and lawsuits have limited effectiveness. Instead, he has encouraged industry to voluntarily mop up its own mess. In 1997, for example, when working on a law aimed at cleaning up grandfathered industrial plants, Bush opted for voluntary permits and called on oil industry representatives, not environmental activists, to consult on guidelines.
Critics call that coddling and note that, according to the Texas-based Public Research Works, Bush’s cozy ties to business have netted him more than $1.1 million in campaign contributions from grandfathered industry interests, compared with about $80,000 in contributions to Gore.
Critics also note that the governor has only appointed candidates with pro-business backgrounds to the state environmental agency. And ultimately, they say, the program has failed dismally, with only about 140 of more than 800 grandfathered plants having signed on, resulting in emissions reductions under 3 percent according to the state numbers and even less according to activists. “Bush’s saying that he doesn’t favor litigation or legislation basically is a signal to industry that he’s going to let them call the tune,” says Daniel J. Weiss of the Sierra Club. “It’s going to be the environmental equivalent of letting the inmates run the asylum.”
In cases when Bush has supported mandatory requirements, he has still left room for critics to question his motives. The governor’s camp touts an aggressive new proposal by the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions by 90 percent in Houston and 88 percent in Dallas. Environmentalists, though, dispute the numbers and counter that Bush acted to enforce federal mandates only after the EPA threatened in May 1999 to withhold $1.3 billion in funds for highway construction unless appropriate anti-pollution measures were put in place. “They’ve been late in doing these things and they’re doing them under duress,” says Jim Marston, regional director of the Texas office of Environmental Defense.
All of which has critics concerned about the possible effects of Bush policies applied nationwide. “If he brought that approach to the federal government,” says Callahan of the League of Conservation Voters, “you wouldn’t recognize the Clean Air Act, you wouldn’t recognize the Clean Water Act.” Houston residents may be breathing easier, but environmentalists clearly are not–and voters will continue hearing about it for weeks to come.
