CLARK'S ENVIRONMENTAL POSITIONS
Can now be found online in his response to the League of Conservation Voters at
http://www.enviros4clark.com/lcv.shtmlHere are a fewf highlights from a 26 page document:
"I strongly support the goals of the Endangered Species Act – to protect the ecosystems upon which threatened and endangered species depend, to protect the species themselves from extinction, and to implement our obligations under international conservation agreements. While I believe the ESA has been quite successful in the 30 years since its enactment, more needs to be done to stem the tide of extinctions. We should once again pursue multi-species habitat conservation plans over wide landscapes. These plans protect species, as well as the economic interests of landowners. As Professor E.O. Wilson has said, allowing species to go extinct is the folly future generations are least likely to forgive us."
"...First, we need to provide tax incentives to get hybrids or other highly efficient vehicles into the marketplace and out on the road. With currently existing technology we can make great strides in reducing emissions. Second, I will put a stop to President Bush’s interference with California’s pioneering program to cut global warming pollution from new vehicles. Third, my Administration will lead an aggressive effort to promote the development of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, which hold great promise for the future. Fourth, I will increase support for better public transportation and other measures to clean the air in new highway legislation."
"President Bush has proposed new legislation – mis-named “Clear Skies” – that actually would weaken current clean air laws and let the nation’s power plants continue to pollute at unsafe levels. For this President, environmental policy is all about rhetoric, not action. His plan would be much worse for the health of our children and all Americans -- especially those at risk for respiratory illness -- than enforcing current clean air laws. His plan does nothing to curb the carbon pollution that causes global warming.
President Bush has also weakened long-standing clean air standards. He has let power plants, oil refineries, and other big factories undertake huge expansion projects without modernizing their pollution controls – increasing dangerous pollution in neighboring communities – simply by mis-labeling their projects as “routine maintenance.” We have already given polluters a free pass for thirty years since the passage of the Clean Air Act by not requiring them to use the best available technology to control their pollution unless they build new plants. And now that the time has come for them to install the appropriate technology – technology that was developed in the United States and installed on nearly every power plant in Germany and Japan – the Bush administration wants to change the rules of the game. Not only is this bad for the environment and the health of our community, but it is also bad economic policy. We need a level playing field: one that is fair to the utilities and refineries that have complied with the law as well as those to which this administration has sold out by changing the laws.
We have the technology and the know-how to do better. As President, I will carry out our existing Clean Air Act fairly and firmly, and I will work with Congress to enact legislation that curbs all four power plant pollutants that threaten our health and cause global warming. I will maintain safeguards for local communities and for our treasured national parks. We can do this. We will save thousands of lives and create thousands of jobs by doing the right thing."
"I believe in free and fair trade. I believe that, properly negotiated, trade agreements can open markets for U.S. products while ensuring that U.S. environment and public health laws remain the strongest in the world. While efforts to open markets can provide important mutual benefits to both countries, its critical that we work to ensure that trade agreements are always designed to raise all boats and never lead to a race to the bottom on either labor standards or the environment. I think that it is critical that prior to the conclusion of any trade agreements the United States should undertake a full environmental impact assessment. In order to be certain that U.S. laws are protected, we need to make the dispute mechanisms in NAFTA, WTO, and other agreements less secretive and more accountable. NGOs, including environmental groups, should be allowed to present their case in front of NAFTA chapter 11 tribunals and other trade dispute bodies. We will work to address the unintended negative consequences of NAFTA chapter 11 so that foreign investors do not have special standing to challenge U.S. public health and environmental laws. Future free trade agreements must contain similar built-in controls that ensure the environment will not suffer as a result. As President, I'll make sure these protections are central to all future trade agreements. With these steps and others, we make sure that a fair and open trading system promotes economic growth while improving the environment around the world."
"Nowhere is the failure of President Bush’s unilateralism more clear than on questions of global environmental security. America is not an island. There are no barriers that separate us from the global atmosphere or the oceans. Our health is protected and our economy prospers when we engage and lead in international efforts to protect the earth’s shared atmosphere, oceans, and living resources.
As President, I will work with the leaders of the Senate to rebuild the consensus for U.S. participation in critical environmental agreements that have languished under this administration. I will reach out to re-engage with other nations on the global environmental dangers we all face.
Environmental leadership is also an important component of American leadership for democracy around the world. Our own environmental laws are models of open government, public access to information, and participation of those with a stake in their government’s actions. As the leader of the free world, we can, and should, be a strong voice for these values abroad."
"All America’s waters need to be protected and a clean environment is of the highest importance to the long-term future of the American people. I believe that the Supreme Court erred in its 2001 ruling in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. Army Corps of Engineers, when it overturned the federal government’s power to protect wetlands, streams, and other waters that may be considered isolated. The Administration has contributed to the damage caused by this decision by failing to issue guidance interpreting the court’s ruling. These actions have endangered the ecological balance in significant portions of our nation’s wetlands. Consequently, I support the Clean Water Restoration Act of 2003, which would clarify that the Clean Water Act of 1972 applies to all of the waters of the United States, and would delete the word “navigable” from the Clean Water Act. All waters of the U.S. need to be protected, not simply ones deemed navigable. I would support legislation that extends Clean Water protection to all United States waters to the full extent constitutionally permitted."
"I support full implementation of the provisions of the FQPA regarding the review of the safety of pesticide residues on food (known as tolerance reassessments). I also support the review of the safety of existing pesticides and their uses according to the most up-to-date science as part of the ongoing EPA re-registration process. Environmental decisions such as these should always be made on the basis of the best available scientific information. When data are lacking, conservative assumptions should be used where supported as a generally accepted scientific practice.
I also believe in “right-to-know” laws. Food producers have the obligation to ensure that the produce provided to America’s consumers and their children is healthy and safe. When the produce industry fails to establish and adhere to internal standards for safety with regard to pesticides on its produce, laws and a mechanism to enforce them must exist to protect the health of the consumer. "
"Equal access to public goods is one of America's most deeply held values. No American should have to live or work in conditions that threaten their health. Environmental health hazards are too often borne by the most vulnerable among us -- the children, the elderly, and low-income communities. Critics often say that environmentalism is an issue that is only a concern for the well-to-do, but in fact just the opposite is true. The affluent are more likely to have the means to protect themselves from exposure to unsafe living conditions like lead, asbestos, hazardous waste, polluted air, and dirty water. The government must protect disadvantaged communities from these dangers."
"Yes, I would support the elevation of the EPA to a cabinet agency, but only if the legislation were free of extraneous provisions that weakened the agency’s ability to protect the environment. Unfortunately, for more than a decade, the EPA cabinet bill has been used as a vehicle for attempted changes to the agency’s authority and mission, sinking the legislation in a sea of controversy. However, even if legislation were not adopted to make EPA a cabinet agency under my administration, I would give the EPA the same status as any other cabinet department."
"I support current environmental laws that provide case-by-case waiver or exemption procedures in the event of a genuine conflict between environmental and national security concerns. I oppose efforts to open broad new exemptions from environmental laws for DOD in the name of national security. In all my years of service, complying with the environmental laws never compromised the military readiness of troops under my command."
"America’s natural resources – our air and water, seacoasts, mountains, wetlands, forests, prairies and wilderness – are among the glories of this nation. They are a legacy passed down by those who have come before and one we are honor-bound to preserve for the generations ahead. Those who would sacrifice our natural gifts for short-term gain forsake this legacy, and at the same time, undermine America’s long-term economic strength. The choice between a strong economy and a clean environment is a false one.
In truth, environmental protection is a character issue. Just as I took care of the soldiers and their families while serving in the U.S. Army, I feel it is my obligation to protect the health of our citizens and take care of the resources our children will inherit. George Bush’s environmental record is a showcase of his Administration’s duplicity. He has betrayed the public trust and is mortgaging our children’s future. Contrary to their rhetoric, the President and his staff of special-interest lobbyists, not their opponents, are the true environmental radicals. Conservation of land and resources is truly a conservative value.
As President, I will immediately halt the Bush Administration’s unprecedented assault on the environment. I will launch programs to safeguard the health of our children and families by cleaning our air, water, and soils, protecting our public lands, restoring U.S. leadership on global environmental issues, and building a new, broad-based coalition for environmental protection. This is an issue that should bring us together on the strength of our shared values."
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
